Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o' clock

PRAYERS

MR. SPEAKER: in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT (NO.2) (BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

CUMBRIA BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That so much of the Lords Message [22 October] as relates to the Cumbria Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Resolved,

That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Nursery Education

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the number of nursery school places; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): There is provision in the Government's expenditure plans for modest capital expenditure to enable those authorities that wish to do so to increase their nursery accommodation, mainly by converting spare primary accommodation.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that nursery school education is of great importance and that it can be of crucial importance to disadvantaged children? Is that not borne out by the fact that all Conservative Members ensure that their children have pre-school education? If, as is reported today, the Secretary of State proposes to charge for nursery school education, does he realise that that would be a disgraceful decision and that there would be total opposition to it from Labour Members?

Dr. Boyson: Two-thirds of nursery provision comes in inner city and urban areas where there is social and economic deprivation. The Government and local authorities have given priority to such areas. I cannot say what percentage of Conservative Members have children in pre-school education, but I should imagine that it is the same as in the rest of the community.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about charging for nursery school education, section 61 of the Education Act 1944 prohibits the charging of fees in 


respect of education provided in maintained schools. The Government have taken no decision to alter that provision relating to nursery education.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the first answer that he gave will be welcome to many Conservative Members? Is he further aware that about 85 per cent. of all young children come from homes where mothers go out to work, either full-time or part-time? Does that not strengthen the already strong argument that nursery education should be provided wherever possible?

Dr. Boyson: Few hon. Members on either side would advocate nursery school education for all. The most that any Government have done has been to increase provision for those who wished it. Many people feel that it is always satisfactory when the mother can be at home with the children. We realise that there is deprivation in various other areas, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the way in which nursery school education has developed is helping those who need it.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that many women who wish to go to work place the highest priority on nursery education for their children, not only for their benefit but for that of their children? Will the hon. Gentleman now firmly and finally rebut any belief that the Secretary of State may have that charges for nursery education may fall outside the 1944 Act and are therefore being seriously considered by the Government? Is he aware that such fantasies on the part of the Secretary of State or his Department have been firmly and totally rejected by the women and families of this country?

Dr. Boyson: I am sure that every hon. Member is aware that at times of economic recession all forms of education expenditure have to be examined to see whether there is a means of making economies or cut-backs. The hon. Lady is a member of a party which in 1975 and 1976 cut back heavily on education in many areas, probably with few shouts from Labour Members.

Mr. Field: Has the Minister read the reports of the Secretary of State's speech yesterday suggesting that the Government might introduce charges for nursery education? Does he agree that poor children benefit most from nursery education? Is he aware that under any means-tested form of support large numbers of poor families fail to claim their help? Does he accept that if the Government introduce means-tested charges for nursery education that will be possibly a fatal blow to the educational attainment and, thereby, the job opportunities of many poor children?

Dr. Boyson: As I have said, obviously the Government are looking at all areas of educational expenditure. I remind the hon. Member that over the last year 6,500 more children entered nursery education, under the present Government than in the previous year, and in the first year in which we were in office the number was 5,200.
I have here two quotations from what my right hon. Friend said yesterday. The first is this:
I do have a slight feeling about the desirability of mothers of young children to be with them.
I think that 95 per cent. of the people of this country would entirely agree with that.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said:
I do not see it as the duty of the Government to see that there is national provision for every child up to the age of five.
Again, I think that 95 per cent. of the people of Britain would entirely agree with that.

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to the House for briefer supplementary questions and answers.

Secondary Schools

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in England in each of the past three years at constant prices.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science(Sir Keith Joseph): Net institutional recurrent expenditure at 1980 survey prices for secondary pupils in England was £572 in 1977–78, £593 in 1978–79 and £601 in 1979–80.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he expects expenditure per secondary pupil in England this year to be higher in real terms than it has ever been?

Sir Keith Joseph: We have no actual figures for last year or this year, but, taking into account the larger number of teachers who were engaged last year than was anticipated, I think that the answer to my hon. Friend is almost certainly "Yes".

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Secretary of State yet replied to Mr. Bernard Barker, the head teacher of the Stanground school, Peterborough, who wrote to him a couple of weeks ago to inform him that in his, Mr. Barker's, opinion, due to the cuts, his school was now breaking section 8 of the Education Act 1944? If the Secretary of State will not accept Mr. Barker's practical illustration, will he accept his own evidence, as he said yesterday that many teachers were teaching age groups for which they are not trained in subjects for which they are not trained? If that is the case, how does the right hon. Gentleman think that the further cuts that he promised yesterday to assistant mistresses and masters will further improve standards of provision and performance in Britain's schools?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have not yet answered Mr. Barker. I entirely accept that I have inherited a position that has prevailed under all Governments since the war of a dramatic mismatch, as it is called, between teachers teaching subjects and their training to teach those subjects, or indeed, in many cases, to teach the age group that they are teaching. There is a mismatch, and it is difficult to cure. The present Government inherited it from the previous Government.
I did not say to the conference yesterday that there would be any cut in schools education. I said that at this time of the year all Governments normally examine all sectors of public spending.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that the cuts in education are now so drastic that they are eating deep into the fabric of education, while public funds are being siphoned off into private education, and that our children are being made to suffer so that private education can expand on taxpayers' money? That is the reality. Does he realise that a depleted and dedicated teaching force is now having to struggle because, as the Book Publishers Association and the equipment associations are coming to tell us—they are coming to our group tonight—sales of books have dropped and the schools do not have enough books or equipment with which to educate our children?

Sir Keith Joseph: Many different factors affect the costs of education—both ways. Local education 

authorities make their own decisions, both about resources and about how to spend them. The fact is that there is a sharp difference of effectiveness as between one LEA and another, both in the resources that they decide to spend and in the effectiveness of how they spend them.
The party that destroyed the direct grant schools has no right to complain when, on behalf of those who are most able to benefit from education and least able to get good education in their areas, the present Government, through my right hon. and learned Friend, my predecessor, have introduced the assisted places scheme.

Aston, Bradford and Salford Universities (Grant Reductions)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the reductions in grant proposed for Aston, Bradford and Salford universities; and whether there have since been any changes in the grants for engineering and scientific subjects.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the representations received from Bradford university regarding future grant support.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): Ministers have received over 1,000 letters about the allocation of grant to the universities of Aston, Bradford and Salford by the University Grants Committee. I am not aware that the UGC is proposing any change in allocation.

Mr. Miller: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment—which I hope has removed any doubt about chips.
From those 1,000 representations, has my hon. Friend understood the serious concern felt in the West Midlands that the reductions proposed by the University Grants Committee strike directly at the technological departments of the university and ignore those research efforts at the university funded by industrial firms?

Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that I understand the quite comprehensible concern expressed in the West Midlands. My hon. Friend's commitment to the University of Aston is well known. We must surely remember that the university system is to be regarded as a national whole. Overall, of the former colleges of applied technology, three have been asked to increase their engineering and two have been asked to diminish it. Understandably enough, we have heard more about the two than the three, but the increases are true, as well as the decreases.

Mr. Cryer:: Does the Minister accept that the reductions proposed at Bradford will diminish the opportunities for young people, place jobs at the university in jeopardy in an area of high unemployment, and undermine the potential viability of the university? Does he realise that the local authority, the university and local trade unions and people bitterly oppose the cuts? As a new Minister with a reputation for cultural achievement, so-called, is he not opposed to these philistine policies, and is he about to embark on a reversal of them?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Member's kind words. It is the opinion of the UGC that after the cuts, which it has been compelled to make, no university will be unviable. 


Of course the cuts are losing us valuable provision, and——

Mr. Canavan: Resign.

Mr. Waldegrave: —no one would want to deny that, but at a time when all public programmes, even the most valuable, must have limited resources applied to them, not even the most valuable of all public provision—and the University of Salford is and will remain a fine institution—can be wholly protected.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Behind the understandable anxieties of individual universities mentioned in this question and others, is not the point touched on by my hon. Friend of very great importance—that for virtually the first time the UGC has intervened positively and moved resources towards the technologies, in a way that very large numbers of people in the House and outside would very warmly applaud?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Within the reduced overall total of students the University Grants Committee has arranged for an increase of 1 per cent. in the sciences and in technology. It has also arranged for an absolute increase in numbers in engineering and technological subjects.

Mr. Whitehead: I thank the new Minister for bringing a fresh mind to a stricken field. Will he consider the position of those universities that are sending out redundancy notices that will add to the overall bill of £250 million in redundancy payments? Will the hon. Gentleman note that students at Aston university are suing the university for breach of contract? What will happen to those legitimate claims from both staff and students? Will it be a matter of a supplementary grant, or will the Minister tell his Department to rethink the whole problem? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation has contributed to—as the hon. Gentleman has called it—the socially reactionary nature of this Government?

Mr. Waldegrave:: The hon. Gentleman—no less than I—knows the unpredictability of the extent of the redundancy problem. It would be foolish for Ministers or others to deny that there is a problem. However, we must tackle that problem when it comes. Since the cases involving the Aston students are being brought to court, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on them.

Mr. Heddle: If my hon. Friend acknowledges the importance that technology, particularly as practised by Aston university, plays in industrial life, will he agree that the Government are courting unfair, unfortunate and unjustified criticism because of the decisions made by the so-called independent UGC? Will my hon. Friend consider consulting his right hon. Friend to see whether a breath of fresh air can be breathed into the UGC's independent decisions, thus restoring some emphasis on the technological institutions?

Mr. Waldegrave: I regret the use of the words "so-called". In its academic judgments the UGC is entirely independent of Ministers. In a recent book Lord Robbins called the institution—
one of the happiest of our constitutional inventions.
It would be wrong for Ministers or for my hon. Friend to try to direct the UGC about its judgments on academic policies.

Mr. Beith: Although the Minister may not be able to comment directly on the Aston students who are suing the university, will he at least make it a principle that students who have been accepted on courses do not find them axed? Will he agree that, as at Brunel university, students who have started courses should not find them axed?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is a matter for the individual institutions concerned.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally inadequate nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to take up the matter at the earliest opportunity.

School Grants

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now introduce school grants for all students between the ages of 16 to 19 years; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Boyson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) said in reply to the question asked on 14 July by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Government are keeping the arrangements for financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds under review, but have no plans at present for changes.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister accept that if it costs about £6,000 million to keep 1 million people out of work there is some sense in keeping more young people in that age group at school? At the very least that would keep them off the streets and give them some purpose in life. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would do more than that? It would provide several thousand jobs for school teachers at a time when at least 6,000 teachers are on the dole. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, in the midst of my hon. Friends, I think that I can say that this issue is part of our alternative strategy on which we are all united.

Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the country will be amazed when it reads that last statement. In future, people will follow Question Time even more closely than before. All the evidence shows that more 16 to 19-year-olds now stay at school. Local education authorities already have powers to pay maintenance grants to children aged between 16 and 19. According to the figures for last year, about £3·7 million was paid to 16 to 19-year-olds who attended school, and a further £3·7 million was paid to those in further education. Therefore, certain things are being done.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Minister recall that during the "no confidence" debate on 27 July the Prime Minister announced that an additional £60 million was to be provided in the next financial year so that 50,000 more youngsters could stay on at school or college? Despite many requests from the many different authorities for information, the Department has failed to give an answer. Will the Minister tell us, for the first time, to whom the money will be given, how it will be spent, how it will be calculated and the policies that the Government have in mind regarding either the payment of 16 to 19-year-olds or the provision of facilities for the hundreds—possibly thousands—of young people who are turned away from further education because of cuts in this academic year?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) for having drawn our attention to the fact that just before the Summer Recess the Prime Minister said that £60 million more would be provided for England and Wales and that provision would be made for about 50,000 more 16 to 19-year-olds to stay at school. As yet I have not gone into the details, but I understand that the money will be given to the local authorities—after discussion with them—via the rate support grant. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bedwellty may not like that, but if the Government allocate the money direct it will cause uproar among the local education authorities, including most of those that are Labour-controlled.

Mr. Madel: For the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Department co-operates even more closely with the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment so that skillcenters can be opened up to young people aged between 16 and 19? Will he also ensure that we tackle the problem of the shortage of instructors in skillcenters?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and agree that such steps must be taken. There are obviously discrepancies in the sums paid to young people on youth opportunity programme schemes, to those receiving unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit, and to those at school. Those discrepancies must be looked at not only by the Department but by other Ministers.

Overseas Students

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many overseas students have enrolled in universities for the 1981–82 academic year; and how many enrolled for the 1980–81 academic year.

Mr. Waldegrave: Information for 1981–82 is currently being collected and will be made available, we hope, by the end of the year. In 1980–81 there were 33,200 overseas student enrolments in the universities of Great Britain. This figure includes students from European Community countries who were charged home fees.

Mr. Beith: What merit can the Minister see in a reduction of 43 per cent. in the number of students from Caribbean countries and in a reduction of 46 per cent. in the number of students from Sri Lanka, where Her Majesty received such a warm welcome? How does he compare that with the substantial increases in the numbers of Third world students in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Waldegrave: Even within the overall drop there have been welcome increases from some countries. It is a correct Government decision that questions of foreign policy should be decided by the Foreign Office, which has £42 million available for expenditure in this area.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of overseas students both in terms of export potential and of our image abroad? Will he undertake to monitor closely the numbers of overseas students in British universities to ensure that the numbers do not fall beyond a level that the Government believe reasonable?

Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is "Yes". The Department is already engaged on such monitoring. As the information becomes available, the Department will analyse it closely.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is going very slowly indeed today. We must move on.

School Leaving Dates

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about introducing greater flexibility into school leaving dates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton):: So far this year my Department has received some 30 letters from hon. Members and members of the public, mostly in respect of individual pupils who wish to leave school before the school leaving age.

Mr. Moate: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment? Does he agree that although many 16-year-olds would undoubtedly benefit from staying longer at school, others have jobs to go to, have alternative sources of education available, or have strong social reasons for being allowed to leave before they are 16 years old. Before the last election did we not promise that we would allow greater flexibility than before? Will my hon. Friend examine that proposal sympathetically?

Mr. Shelton: I know the interest that my hon. Friend has shown in this matter. There is a problem, but, given the high level of unemployment, we do not think it right to encourage youngsters to leave school for the work market. The recent joint working party concluded that where youngsters had finished their school courses but had not attained leaving age it might be possible to transfer them to full-time courses of further education. Consultations are taking place and the results of the consultations will be studied.

Truancy

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is satisfied with the methods used by local education authorities to monitor and reduce higher levels of school truancy.

Mr. William Shelton: These methods vary from area to area, and neither the authorities nor my Department can ever be fully satisfied that such a complex issue as truancy is being tackled in exactly the right way.

Mr. Heddle: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that hard core truancy is the kindergarten of crime, particularly in the inner city areas? Has my hon. Friend considered the resolution passed by the National Association of Head Teachers at its annual conference, that parental condoned truancy is still on the increase? Has he had the opportunity to consider Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report, which suggests that parental condoned truancy exists in about 20 out of every 100 schools? Has he any suggestions about how that can be contained or reduced?

Mr. Shelton: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a serious problem. There is an increased problem of truancy condoned by parents. The short answer to my hon. Friend is that there is no way of tackling truancy nationally, other than by making courses in schools more 


interesting. The Government have already taken the initiative by examining the school curriculum. Furthermore, there are plans to introduce pre-vocational examinations at 17-plus, with a move to pre-vocational training in a balanced curriculum in the fourth and fifth years. We believe that that will do much to reduce truancy.

Mr. Freud: Perhaps the Minister would care to examine the French system whereby child benefits are paid against satisfactory school attendance records —[Interruption.]

Mr. Shelton: I shall certainly take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Primary Education

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will carry out a study to identify why primary education in the Inner London Education Authority costs almost twice as much as it does in Northamptonshire; whether it achieves higher standards; and to what extent the additional cost is borne by the general taxpayer.

Dr. Boyson:: No, Sir. The Government have already carried out a comprehensive review of the ILEA and in February this year announced their conclusions. Because ILEA's expenditure this year of about £700 million is almost 50 per cent. above the Government's assessment of its needs, it is likely to receive no grant, whereas Northamptonshire will receive about £74 million grant on its total expenditure of £174 million.

Mr. Marlow: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the ILEA, for all the money that it receives, provides as good education as that provided by other counties, such as Northamptonshire? If not, will he introduce a system whereby ILEA can produce that quality of education without subsidy, like the rather more efficient counties?

Dr. Boyson: The HMI report, which came out just over a year ago, indicated that there were deficiencies in a number of secondary schools in London. In the ILEA 14·09 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers passed five O-levels, whereas in Northamptonshire, in which my hon Friend has a great interest, the figure was 16·7 per cent. We have said that we shall watch what is happening in the ILEA and that it must have a better return for the money that is being put in in terms of achievement. Otherwise, the situation will have to be re-examined.

Mr. Christopher Price: Now that at last the Minister has some responsibilities for the schools about which some of us had some fears, will he re-examine the complaints by Northamptonshire parents to the Secretary of State that the law is being broken in Northamptonshire? Will he review the decision by the previous Secretary of State and discover whether the decision in Northamptonshire fulfils the law under section 8 of the 1944 Act?

Dr. Boyson: Any complaint to my Department is examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As Chairman of the Select Committee on the subject, the hon. Gentleman will know that inspectors are inspecting the schools. Any complaints will be examined carefully and answered to the satisfaction of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Dobson:: Will the Minister explain to parents in London why he is willing to pay £70 million towards 

expenditure on education in Northamptonshire where, in the opinion of parents there, there is an inadequate standard of education, but unwilling to provide one shilling towards inner London's education costs? Does he agree that his own malignant officials and his own malignant colleagues on the Front Bench have decided that the ILEA is providing a decent standard of education?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Inner London, for which the hon. Gentleman asks for more money, spends almost twice as much on the education of children—£925 per child—as Northamptonshire. I do not believe that it requires any more money to achieve the same standards.

Pupil Numbers

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the figures of the total number of pupils in State primary and secondary schools, respectively, in this academic year; and how they compare with last year.

Dr. Boyson: The total number of full-time and part-time pupils in maintained nursery and primary schools in England is projected to fall by 200,000, from 4,225,000, in January 1981 to 4,025,000 in January 1982. In maintained secondary schools the projected fall is 60,000 pupils, from 3,840,000 in January 1981 to 3,780,000 in January 1982.

Mr. Chapman: Since those figures indicate a greater reduction than the modest cutbacks in the increase in expenditure on education in the last year, will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost per pupil in primary and secondary schools has risen in real terms in the past year? If so, does he accept that many people believe that that is an extremely welcome trend, given the economic realities and the fact that total Government expenditure this year will be 10 per cent. in excess of income?

Dr. Boyson: Expenditure on individual pupils has been rising in real terms in Britain for the last 30 years. Since the decrease in expenditure is only half that of the percentage decrease in the number of pupils in our schools in two or three years' time, as well as next year under present plans, more will be spent on the individual child than is being spent now.

Mr. Marks: Why has the Department of Education and Science frustrated for so long the genuine attempt by the Manchester education authority to tackle the problem of falling rolls by the reorganisation of its schools? Is the Minister aware that it is nine months since the Department unnecessarily called in Manchester's scheme for examination? Is he aware that if the scheme is brought in next year it will produce many economies, but that the decision must be made by the end of this month? When will the decision be announced?

Dr. Boyson: I understand the concern felt by Manchester Members. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The matter had to be called in by the Secretary of State because complaints had been made. The 1980 Act is specific. It states that if complaints are made the Secretary of State must call it in. I realise that the matter has been with us for nine months. There has been a change of Ministers in the Department in the last four or five weeks. We have been looking at the matter closely since then. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a decision will be made very soon.

Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio has continued to improve during that period?

Dr. Boyson: I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) says. At 1 January this year the pupil-teacher ratio was the lowest in British history—18·6 pupils per member of staff.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that the pupil-teacher ratio should not be used as a rigid guide for the staffing of any particular school? Is he aware, for example, that the loss of one teacher in a small primary school can have very serious effects on education in that school? Is he also aware that the loss of specialist teachers in a secondary school can have an equally serious effect?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman has distinguished teaching experience. I am well aware of what he says. That is why the reduction in staff numbers and money is less than the reduction in the number of pupils. We want schools to be able to operate their full curriculum despite falling rolls.

Examination Achievements (Comprehensive and Grammar Schools)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the most recent evidence he has received on the comparative performance in terms of examination achievements of comprehensive and grammar schools.

Sir Keith Joseph: Evidence shows that grammar schools as a whole have better examination results than comprehensive schools as a whole. This is not surprising, because grammar schools are selective and comprehensive schools are not. All of us must be concerned that more and more comprehensive schools should have as good results as some comprehensive schools already have.

Mr. Neubert:: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the rising curve of examination successes in 1971 seems to have been halted by the introduction of universal comprehensive education and that the abolition of the 11-plus, with over-large schools and mixed ability teaching, means that the education system increasingly fails to produce the right results? Would we not, as a country, do better if we maintained as wide a range of education as possible?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with both propositions. The simultaneous destruction of direct grant schools and grammar schools, while comprehensive schools were installed as near universities as Labour Governments found possible without experiment, was tragic in educational and human terms.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as long as independent, direct grant and grammar schools, in that pecking order, cream off the brightest children, the examination results must be in that order, too?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is precisely what I explained in my main answer.

Overseas Students

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations he has received about the level of fees charged to students from overseas.

Sir Keith Joseph: Since the beginning of May, 170 representations have been received from hon. Members, academic institutions, students and student associations and other interested national organisations.

Mr. Dubs: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the consequence of charging higher fees to overseas students is seen not only in lower numbers of such students, but, more especially, in the poorest students from the poorest countries being badly affected? How does that square with what the Prime Minister said yesterday on her return from the Cancum summit in Mexico?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is not stating the precise position. The Government have provided a substantial sum to help pay the fees of those who come to Britain from poor countries.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the numbers of overseas students in our universities now compare with what they were targeted to be under the previous Labour Governments' quota scheme?

Sir Keith Josph: There are more.

Mr. Christopher Price: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed what has happened to trade between Britain and Malaysia in recent months? Is he aware that an all-party group of Members of Parliament that visited Malaysia recently was told that the reduction in trade had resulted largely from the discrimination that Malaysia felt over overseas students? For the sake of a small proportion of a £100 million saving in overseas fees, is it worth jeopardising billions of pounds of United Kingdom trade?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is being rather crude in assuming a single cause for a trend that may have many causes.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this period of great difficulty, especially when cash is tight in every area, taxpayers are entitled to expect students from OPEC countries and other countries that have held Britain to ransom to pay full fees?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is a legitimate anxiety on both sides of the House to protect those who do not come from wealthy families or rich countries and who would otherwise benefit from education in Britain. Various reliefs have been provided by the Government to enable more students in that position to come here. The reliefs that the Government have provided should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Whitehead: This year Sheffield university has lost fee income of about £1 million. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the university should trawl the world for rich students or forgo that fee income and probably the courses associated with it? If he is making the former suggestion, may I ask how he squares that with the criticism properly made of it at the Mexico summit?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman knows that Governments of both colours do not desire or achieve any 


control over universities. The universities have been on a rising diet of taxpayers' money for more than 25 years. They now face one of the first adjustments that they have had to make, and many of them are finding ways to adjust.

Science and Technology

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what figures are available for the impact of public expenditure cuts on higher education provision for science and technology; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: In the universities, despite a slight fall in the expected number of all science-based students, the University Grants Committee's allocation of grant for 1981–82 and provisional indications for later years provide for growth in student numbers in engineering and technology, mathematics and the physical sciences and for the support of important new developments in the biological sciences. Comparable information is not available for the non-university sector.

Mr. Roberts:: Does the Minister accept that, whereas cuts for the universities and polytechnics are bad enough, the real indictment of the Government's policy is that the growth that could be achieved in mathematics, computing, engineering and high technology generally is not being achieved? There is a great demand from industry, but that is not being met because of the Government's financial policies.

Mr. Waldegrave:: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said.

Mr. Roberts:: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Waldegrave:: There is growth in exactly the areas for which he is arguing.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 27 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Jones: Bearing in mind the heavy levels of unemployment, does the right hon. Lady not owe it to the country to make significant changes in her economic policy? Is it not now the case that she no longer has a majority in the House for monetarism and unemployment?

The Prime Minister: By fighting inflation we are fighting unemployment. I thought that that was agreed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend heard that while she was away her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade signed an agreement worth £350 million for engineering exports from Britain to Brazil? Will she do all in her power to ensure that we have further successes of that sort by keeping our prices down?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I congratulate all who were involved in that very big deal of about £350 million for goods to Brazil. It will help British Shipbuilders, Northern 

Engineering Industries, GEC and Ferranti. Much of the work will go to the North. I congratulate everyone involved.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady had a chance, since her return from Mexico, to consider the extremely critical situation in British Leyland? Will she undertake to use either her influence direct, or the influence of one of her Ministers, to intervene to ensure that serious negotiations take place? This firm is not on the verge of collapse. It could speedily be moving into a considerable situation of profits and success. I ask the right hon. Lady not to answer the question here and now, but to consider it afresh and to report to the House on Thursday on how the Government can assist in dealing with this situation.

The Prime Minister: I should make it clear that the Government want British Leyland to succeed. We made that abundantly clear by the huge sums that the taxpayer invested in British Leyland in the past. The taxpayer has committed £990 million for 1981–82 and 1982–83. Industrial relations are matters for the company. The Government are not seeking to influence the company in that respect.

Mr. Foot: May I plead with the right hon. Lady, once again, on this matter? I hope that she will take account of what may be said to her by some of her hon. Friends. It would certainly be said by all my hon. Friends who represent parts of the country where British Leyland operates. I believe that anyone who considers the dispute will come to the conclusion that there are many other factors on which some independent assistance is needed. Anyone who talks to the management and to the unions, as we have done, could, I believe, come to the conclusion that there is a possibility of a settlement without victory or defeat for either side, but solely a victory for the nation as a whole. I plead with the right hon. Lady, once again, not to say "No" now, but to return to the House on Thursday, to see what the situation is then, and to consider whether the Government can use their mediating powers to assist in this situation?

The Prime Minister: All comments made by right hon. and hon. Members will be drawn to the company's attention. I must repeat that the Government want British Leyland to succeed, but they do not think it right to intervene in the handling of this matter by the company.

Mr. Foot: I still hope that the right hon. Lady will make a statement to the House. She may not have fully appreciated the feeling throughout the country on this subject. If she looks at the matter afresh, she may wish to make a different statement to the House of Commons on Thursday.

The Prime Minister: I have very much appreciated the feeling in the country. The taxpayer has invested a great deal of money in British Leyland. The sum of £990 million is allocated for this year and next year, so neither the taxpayer's nor the Government's good faith is in doubt.

Mr. John Carlisle: While Mrs. Gandhi deliberates over the fate of the British cricket tour, will my right hon. Friend make urgent representations to the Indian Prime Minister to allow the tour to go ahead? Will she condemn the latest United Nations black list that now seeks to prevent entertainers with a connection with South Africa from performing their arts?

The Prime Minister: We do not recognise the United Nations black list of individuals. It appears to us to conflict gravely with our ideas on individual liberty. I have not discussed the cricket tour with Mrs. Gandhi. We believe that we have honoured the Gleneagles agreement, and, naturally, we hope that the tour will go ahead for the benefit of cricket in both countries.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that while she was away a new Member of Parliament was elected for Croydon, North-West? Will she at any time allow the judgment of the people to affect her draconian policies on unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I was just about aware of that. I remember when Liberal Members were elected for Orpington and Sutton and Cheam.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 27 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Prime Minister agree that the magnificent march last Saturday by about 200,000 people in protest against nuclear weapons is a sign of massive public revulsion against those weapons of death? Will she now review her defence policies to take note of public opinion?

The Prime Minister: The prospect of nuclear war is abhorrent to everyone. That is not in doubt. The purpose of our having nuclear weapons is to deter any aggressor who is a threat to this country from attacking this country. Many of us would look forward to the day when people were free to march in Moscow if they held that view.

Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend spare a thought during the day for the unfortunate ratepayers of Nottinghamshire, who until May this year were in the lowest rated county in the country? Is she aware that since then an 18p supplementary rate has been imposed and that the Labour council is using nearly £10,000 of it for a basketball coach and £100,000 for a perfumed garden in Rufford Abbey?

Mr. Concannon: What about the old-age pensioners?

Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger of our ratepayers that the Association of District Councils——

Mr. Concannon: What about the meals on wheels?

Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger of our ratepayers that the Association of District Councils is implacably opposed to the reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to curb such excesses?

The Prime Minister: I did not know the full facts about the increase in rates in Nottingham, but I know that ratepayers everywhere are angry at some of the increases in rates which they are facing. In particular, small businesses are angry because the increases cause the loss of jobs on a considerable scale. Many people are wishing that they had never elected Labour local authorities, which are extremely extravagant with ratepayers' money.
Later—

Mr. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, I do not habitually raise points of order. In fact, I cannot remember the last time when I did so.

However, serious allegations were made about Nottinghamshire county council this afternoon. I think that a reply should be given on behalf of the old-age pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the have-nots of Nottinghamshire, not to mention the manifesto commitments of the winners of the Nottinghamshire county council election. Surely that should have warranted a reply from the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with tolerance, but, whatever else they were, they were not a point of order.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 27 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to emphasise that if we are not to have higher taxes or higher borrowing leading to higher interest rates, calls for higher public expenditure can only mean printing money and that such debasing of the currency leads to chronic uncompetitiveness and loss of jobs? When production is increasing, when productivity is improving and when wages are taking an anti-inflationary trend, it would be folly to return to those discredited policies.

The Prime Minister: I entirely accept that and agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolute folly ever to resort to printing money on the scale on which it has been printed in the past. It would do untold damage and ensure that we could not be competitive with our rivals in overseas countries. Any increase in public spending has to be financed either by taxation or by borrowing, and that could mean higher interest rates.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister confirm that when the Salt II talks were concluded it was announced officially that there was nuclear parity between the Soviet Union and the United States of America? Why do the Prime Minister and President Reagan now say that they must install Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe to bring about parity before nuclear disarmament talks can proceed? Will she explain that to the House?

The Prime Minister: It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should need an explanation, when the Soviet Union has so many SS20s targeted on Europe and when one comes into service every five days. It is remarkable that he should object to our having a deterrent to those.

Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. Joseph Luns, the Secretary General of NATO, has estimated that about £6 million was spent by Russia on anti-nuclear propaganda in Western Europe last year and that 10 out of 40 members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament national committee are Communists? Which country is likely to benefit most if Britain follows a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament?

The Prime Minister: I was aware of that sum. I hope that people are not taken in by it. Anyone who goes for unilateral disarmament is not likely to get the Soviet Union to the negotiating table on disarmament as a whole. They would put that in jeopardy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Prime Minister have discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the difficulties faced by universities in


general, and Aberdeen university in particular? Is she aware that the medical school at Aberdeen is likely to lose 60 posts, many at consultant level, and that the principal has said that there is a danger that the university will go bankrupt? He has described the cuts as mindless and unthinking. Will she stop hiding behind the University Grants Committee and take a serious look at the damage that the Government's policy is doing to university education across the whole country?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has just answered questions for nearly three-quarters of an hour. The University Grants Committee is independent. It receives a global sum and decides how it shall be allocated. The Government do not decide that.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 27 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: I should be grateful if the Prime Minister would find time today to consider the latest calamity on Merseyside, which is the closure of the Speke motor car factory owned by British Leyland. Is it her intention to 

intervene to save that latest loss of jobs? Will she comment on the gratuitous remarks of the Secretary of State for Employment about unemployed people in Merseyside getting on bicycles and trying to and non-existent jobs?

The Prime Minister:: My right hon. Friend did not make the exact remarks that the hon. Gentleman has attributed to him. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard my reply to the Leader of the Opposition. Industrial relations are a matter for the company. It is not my intention to intervene.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high level of exports being attained by British manufacturing companies and the recent substantial orders that have been obtained are clear evidence that this country is becoming much more competitive and that we must do nothing to damage that competitiveness?

The Prime Minister: The export figures for this month were good. Admittedly, they were figures for only one month, but they were 6 per cent. in volume higher than the last figures that we had in January and February. That is a matter for congratulations to all the companies, both the management and the work force, and evidence that they are becoming much more competitive.

Bomb Incidents (London)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The House is aware that at about 4 pm yesterday afternoon a bomb exploded in a Wimpy bar in Oxford Street, killing Mr. Kenneth Howorth, a Metropolitan Police explosives officer. Mr. Howorth had entered the building following an anonymous phone call received by Reuters news agency at 2.50 pm warning that three bombs had been placed in shops in Oxford Street, the other two places being the department stores Debenhams and Bourne's. Subsequently an explosive device was found in Debenhams and made safe. Despite an intensive search, a third device has not been found. The Provisional IRA has said that it was responsible.
The House will wish to express its revulsion at this vicious act. It will also I am sure wish to join in paying tribute to the courage and dedication to duty of Mr Howorth. Our deepest sympathy goes to his widow and family. We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those who, like Mr. Howorth, risk their lives to protect us.
This is the third bombing incident this month in London for which the IRA has said it is responsible. In the first, at Chelsea barracks, two people were killed. The second was the attack on Lieutenant-General Sir Steuart Pringle. The House will wish me to place on record our deepest sympathy with the relatives of the victims of the first attack and our tribute to the courage of Sir Steuart
The emergency services have responded swiftly and efficiently on each of these occasions. I can assure the House that the police are taking all possible steps—as they have done with success in the past—to bring the criminals to justice.
I should like to underline what the police have already said. They need help from the public and, above all, vigilance. Any suspicious objects or actions should be reported to the police immediately.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: We join with the right hon. Gentleman in utterly and unequivocally condemning yesterday's outrage. As all such vicious acts are morally inexcusable, it is perhaps incorrect to draw a distinction between one outrage and another. However, for my part, I feel a particular revulsion at bombs being placed in a position and at a time which are likely to result in the death and injury of schoolchildren.
I add our tribute to the courage and dedication of Mr. Kenneth Howorth. We offer our sympathy to his relatives, and we offer our gratitude to his colleagues who at great risk to themselves continue to protect innocent members of our society. The Opposition also offer their sympathy to Sir Steuart Pringle and to the relatives of Mrs. Nora Field and to Mr. John Breslin, the victims of the Chelsea bombing.
Our hope is that the vigilance of the public and the determination of the police will both prevent future death and injury and bring the people responsible for these three murderous attacks to speedy justice.

Mr Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, because it shows a considerable degree of unity throughout the House, which is of enormous importance in situations such as this. I am

particularly grateful for what he said, with which I entirely agree, about the risk to schoolchildren. I am sure that the House wholeheartedly supports his view.

Dr. David Owen: I and members of my party fully share the sympathy that the Home Secretary has extended to the victims of these tragic incidents. I assure him of our full support. The whole House recognises that once again we have been given an example of the selfless duty of those who work in the bomb disposal squad. Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept our assurance that we shall do everything possible to sustain the determination of people on the mainland, when faced with these bomb outrages, to follow the extraordinary example of the people of Northern Ireland who, unfortunately, have experienced similar occurrences for many years?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for his comments. It is worth recalling that since March 1974 Mr. Howorth has been with the Metropolitan Police bomb disposal unit. Before that he worked in Northern Ireland. He gave considerable service to this country in that respect.

Sir Frederick Burden: We all agree with my right hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy with the widow of this very brave man. However, will he look into the possibility of making a special grant to the wives of men who are killed in such circumstances? They suffer constant and considerable stress because they know of the threat which their husbands face almost every day.

Mr. Whitelaw: Many people will have sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. His suggestion raises wide issues, and it would be wrong of me to commit myself this afternoon.

Mr. James Molyneaux: May we take it that the sympathy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and the House extends to all victims of the Provisional IRA?

Mr. Whitelaw: Most certainly, yes, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have constantly risen in their places, but I know they will realise that guillotined business is to follow.

Mr. John Farr: As it is obviously the wish of both sides of the House properly to debate the matter and to pay tribute to the bravery of those concerned, will my right hon. Friend see whether this week—perhaps by doing away with some of Thursday's business—we can have a half-day debate on the recent run of terrorist bombings in London and the Home Counties?

Mr. Whitelaw: The arrangement of business is a matter for my right hon. friend the Leader of the House. However, if I were to hazard a view, it would be that the House should consider carefully what we gain by debates of that sort and whether we might make the situation more difficult by giving more succour to the terrorists, which is the last thing we intend to do.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Why is it necessary to insist on defusing such devices, thereby risking the lives of brave men, when the only danger is to property?

Mr. Whitlaw: I would have to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. However I should have thought that there was considerable danger at that moment not only to property but to life. I shall discuss the hon. Gentleman's point with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. But, as I have said, I believe that there was considerable danger to life as well as to property at that time.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the death of Mr. Howorth is a staggering tribute not only to his own bravery but to that of all bomb disposal officers, particularly in Northern Ireland? Without referring to any specific security measures, and bearing in mind the difficulties, can my right hon. Friend say anything which might reassure the public in the main streets and thoroughfares of London as the Christmas shopping season approaches?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, with regard to the Army bomb disposal units, anyone who has had some of the experience that I have had, as many right hon. and hon. Members have, both in Northern Ireland and here, will be the first to recognise the enormous bravery of these officers in many very difficult situations.
On the second point, I believe that our best safeguard against such attacks is vigilance, being very careful and at the same time reporting any suspicious incidents to the police. The other safeguard, of course, is what has been achieved by the police in the past in bringing the people who commit these crimes to justice. It is worth pointing out that at present there are some 69 IRA prisoners in English gaols who have been charged and convicted of serious offences.
The police have had considerable success in the past, and we must be confident that they will succeed again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Of course one willingly pays tribute to those who have suffered, whoever they may be. Without denigrating anybody, however, is not it a fact—and I can prove this to the right hon. Gentleman—that one may, as indeed I have, report suspicious circumstances to the police and it is weeks before they do anything?
According to the press photograph, in the recent incident at Victoria, it looked as though the van was on the zig-zag line before a zebra crossing. It should not have remained there for five minutes. I have myself reported vehicles, but nothing is done about it. As we have the largest police force ever, with all the new electronic aids, why cannot the police take action sooner? Why does it take them weeks, if not months, to take action?

Mr. Whitelaw: They can and do take action immediately. If the hon. Gentleman tells me something is a fact, presumably I have to accept it, although I occasionally have my doubts. At the same time, I am perfectly prepared to look into what the hon. Gentleman says if he will give me what he alleges to be facts. Between us we can then ascertain whether they are indeed facts.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Since terrorism has gone on unabated to a large extent in Northern Northern Ireland and to an extent in the United Kingdom the last 12 years, would my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the experimental reintroduction for a period of the death penalty? I am sure that there would be massive support for it.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a matter upon which hon. Members have their own individual points of view. Those views have been expressed collectively in this Parliament. I do not think that I have anything further to say on that.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that those of us who believe in the need for a thorough reappraisal of policies towards Northern Ireland have no hesitation in condemning these outrages and all the crimes and atrocities of the Provisional IRA and the other terrorist groups operating on the other side of Northern Ireland's political divide?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, particularly in so far as it shows that there is a united wish in the House to stand up for the people of Northern Ireland and to fulfil our duty to them whatever difficulties may confront us here.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend accept that equally serious hazards at this time are the hoax calls that the police have been receiving? I understand that this morning many hoax calls have had to be dealt with in London. Will he make it clear to the general public that his Department will take very seriously this terrible waste of police time?

Mr. Whitelaw: The making of hoax calls and wasting police time is a specific offence and will certainly be regarded as such. At the same time, if we ask the public to report all suspicious circumstances, Scotland Yard must expect a large number of calls of this kind.

Mr. David Alton: I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of repugnance and the condolences already expressed on both sides of the House. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether there is any evidence yet that those involved in the perpetration of these crimes are part of indigenous cells that have remained dormant in our cities for some years, or whether ports of entry such as Liverpool have been used as bolt holes by the terrorists concerned?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I would serve the best interests of the country by speculating on such matters. I have information, of course, but I think that it would be wrong to speculate.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: William Henry Pitt Esq., for Croydon, North-West.

Police Complaints (Reform)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the procedures for making complaints about the police; and for connected purposes.
The aim of the Bill is quite simply to establish an independent machinery for investigating complaints about the police. I am well aware that I am not the first hon. Member to raise this issue. Indeed, my research in Hansard shows that many hon. Members have raised the issue in the past. I pay tribute to their endeavours in publicising the need for a change in the present set-up.
In recent months, however, more attention has been drawn to the operations of the police. The general public have become more worried, and the way in which complaints about the police are handled has been the subject of much more attention in the media and elsewhere. In the last few weeks, indeed, three chief constables have come out in favour of independent machinery for investigating complaints against the police. The chief constable of the Lancashire force, Mr. Albert Laugharne, said:
Investigations of complaints, whether they are of alleged crimes by policemen or serious disciplinary offences, I think, can only be done by an outside body responsible to a person independent of the police service.
Mr. Peter Imbert, chief constable of Thames Valley force, spoke of the need for an independent complaints ombudsman. Mr. James Anderton, chief constable of Manchester, no less, said that the police had nothing to fear from an independent element in the system. It is also extremely probable that when Lord Scarman reports in a few weeks he, too, will come out in favour of independent machinery for investigating complaints against the police.
The Bill is therefore in no sense an anti-police measure. Indeed, I suggest that if the Bill became law it would lead to more public confidence in the police, because there would be more belief on the part of the public that legitimate complaints against the police would have a fair hearing and justice would be done and would be seen to be done.
The difficulty with the present method of investigating complaints is that it is seen and known by the public not to be independent, because the police themselves carry out the investigations. Accordingly, the public are reluctant to complain, partly because they feel that there is no purpose and partly because inevitably some of the complaints are of the way the police behave when the complainant may be under threat of prosecution.
A Home Office research unit report, unpublished but quoted extensively in The Times some months ago, drew attention to serious defects in the way that complaints of assault were handled in the Metropolitan Police area. Last year the Police Complaints Board completed investigations into about 15,000 complaints, Of course, the board does not have an "independent" element in the full sense of the word. The board considers reports of investigations and recommendations by the police. The effect of the board's work is to rubber-stamp the police reports. That is evidenced by the fact that in 1979 the board referred the report back to the police for more information in only 31 instances. The figure increased to 110 in 1980. That is still a drop in the ocean when one considers the volume of complaints made about the police every year. 

How would such an independent police investigating machinery operate? I shall call it the police ombudsman for short, because the public have come to accept that the other ombudsman machinery is truly independent of Whitehall, local government, or the service it may be investigating. I see the police ombudsman as having his own investigating staff. Some of them may be ex-police officers, but there would be no serving police officers in order to meet the need for a truly independent set-up in investigating complaints.
It is sometimes said that such an ombudsman may be bogged down by many trival or ill-founded complaints. Under the present set-up, when the police feel that complaints are trivial or ill-founded, they can refer them to the Police Complaints Board to save time. Last year 433 complaints were dealt with in that way. It is difficult to believe that, out of 15,000 complaints, only 433 were deemed to be ill-founded or trivial. The answer is that, because the police know that the way they handle complaints is scrutinised and criticised, they are understandably reluctant to say "These complaints are trivial and ill-founded so we will pass them to the Police Complaints Board." The result is that the police have to spend a great deal of time investigating trivial and ill-founded complaints. One of the benefits—although not the main one—of having an independent police ombudsman is that his staff could investigate complaints and report quickly without too full an investigation if there were prima facie evidence that the complaints were trivial, ill-founded or vexatious.
Furthermore, the police ombudsman could do something that is impossible under the present setup—that is, where appropriate, seek conciliation between the complainant and the police. That would be an enormous benefit and would lead to better relations between the police and local communities.
However, in some instances there would have to be a full and thorough investigation by the police ombudsman. That should not be confined only to instances of serious physical injury to a member of the public allegedly caused by the police, because there is a point of principle in some complaints against the police. Although they may seem to deal with a trivial event, there may be a major point of principle. The police ombudsman should have the power, when appropriate, to investigate fully the whole range of complaints.
The police ombudsman should have power to recommend, when appropriate, that the Director of Public Prosecutions institute proceedings against police officers or that the police disciplinary code be invoked. He would also have the duty to make a full report annually to Parliament. The Home Affairs Select Committee should have the power to deal in more detail with the reports and work of the police ombudsman. The police ombudsman should also have the power to make general recommendations to the police about overall policy and practice where that is appropriate in the light of one or more investigations.
The time has come to legislate. There is overwhelming support for this proposal and there is worry and disquiet about the way in which the system operates now. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill. We are nearing the end of the Session, but if I had the support of the House I should feel justified in reintroducing the Bill


in the next Session. Then I should have the authority to ask for the support of the Home Office in putting forward such legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Christopher Price, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

POLICE COMPLAINTS (REFORM)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: accordingly presented a Bill to reform the procedures for making complaints about the police; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

British Nationality Bill

ALLOTTED DAY

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out 
the Secretary of State is satisfied that.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison):: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7, 10, 11 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 34, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 56, 57, 77, 78, 79 and 80.

Mr. Raison: The amendments remove the stipulations in the Bill that applicants for citizenship as an entitlement must satisfy the Secretary of State that they have met various requirements. It was suggested in Committee in another place that the inclusion of those words might deter applicants from approaching the courts when they had been refused an entitlement to citizenship, because they might suppose that the entitlement did not exist where the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the requirements had been met. It was not our intention to put obstacles in the way of aggrieved applicants through such a proviso. We are not convinced that the words will act to restrict the ability of the courts to consider an approach by someone who had been refused citizenship to which he believed himself entitled.
Nevertheless, we have decided that it is possible to operate the provisions without specifying that the entitlement should depend upon whether the Secretary of State is satisfied. If the criteria are met, the entitlement should obtain even if the Secretary of State is not satisfied. We accept, too, that the present form of words may lead to fears. There should be no ambiguity about what is demanded of applicants for citizenship as an entitlement. Accordingly, we have decided to remove that possible cause of anxiety and friction.
The amendment applies this decision to clause 1(4), but what I have said should be taken as applying the necessary variations to the many other amendments in the group. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.

Mr. John Tilley: The Opposition welcome this amendment, as we do all the amendments from the other place. We support the amendment especially because it came originally from Lord Gifford, who is a Labour peer. A whole series of entitlements throughout the Bill—it is not only clause 1 that is under discussion—can now be claimed through the courts. We hope that they will be effectively claimed where the Home Office refuses to grant the entitlement, so that they become a right rather than a concession, as they were seen to be before—although I accept the Minister's point that that was not the intention.
We hope that the courts will determine the facts of cases where there is a dispute over entitlement and not merely consider, as they do in some cases, whether the Secretary of State took reasonable steps to determine the facts. We also hope that the change will shift the burden of proof away from the applicant to some degree.


The test of the amendments will be in the eating—once they get to the courts. However, we are happy to agree to amendment No. 1 and the numerous similar amendments throughout the Bill.

4 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the House agrees with the Lords in the amendment, I hope that the Minister of State can remove a cause of anxiety that occurs on studying the effect of the removal of the words whereby it appears that we may have created a new cause of jeopardy while seeking to remove a difficulty that might have stood in the way of rendering the Secretary of State's decision justiciable. I agree with the object of rendering these matters as little as possible—even apparently—dependent on the Secretary of State's discretion.
The problem that I pose is this. Let us suppose that, after a person had been registered, it appeared that, not as a result of fraud, which is provided for elsewhere in the Bill, but as a matter of fact he has been absent from the United Kingdom in the relevant period for a number of days exceeding 90. Would it not be possible, if the words were omitted, for it to be construed that, as a matter of fact, he was not entitled at the time he applied to be registered and that, accordingly, he had not been validly registered? Had we retained the existing words, presumably that could not arise since the statement would be, and would be certified, that at the relevant time the Secretary of State was satisfied, that, therefore, the entitlement existed and that, therefore, the registration was properly made.
I hope that without labouring the point I have made the difficulty clear to the Minister of State. My desire is not to render the matter more doubtful from the point of view of the applicant but to be quite sure that, by removing the Secretary of State's satisfaction from the wording here and elsewhere, we are not opening a possibility whereby registration might subsequently be placed in jeopardy.

Mr. Raison: As was often the case in Committee, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has asked a searching question to which he is obviously entitled to an answer. My understanding is that the matter is arguable. The Lords took the view that, on balance, it was better to remove the possible obstacle to the applicant. As I say, we have come to that view. I am not advised that there is a serious problem.
I accept that we are at a late stage in the progress of the Bill. I can only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill as it stands is satisfactory. No doubt if the problem arose and the matter came to the courts, the strong probability is that they would interpret the legislation in accordance with the obvious intention.

Mr. Powell: Since the House will be returning later today to the question of justiciability in a wider although perhaps not identical context, if the question that I posed has taken the Minister of State somewhat unawares, he may be able in his reply at that time to include a more considered—I mean no reproach by that word—and fuller rebuttal of the anxiety that I endeavoured to formulate.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. I note what he says.
Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
( ) Where an order in consequence of which any person became a British citizen by virtue of subsection (5) ceases to have effect, whether on annulment or otherwise, the cesser shall not affect the status of that person as a British citizen.

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Lords amendment No. 35.

Mr. Raison: This amendment is designed to simplify and clarify a particularly complicated part of clause 1. The amendment seeks, first, to delete subsections (6) and (7) of clause 1, which seek to re-enact in terms of British citizenship the provisions of section 40(3) of the Adoption Act 1976. That subsection provided that, if a convention adoption order—or a specified order—ceased to have effect, a child would not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on that account.
There was no similar provision in the 1976 Act for any other adoption orders which may be revoked. It is in fact unlikely that a child would lose citizenship if adoption orders other than those defined in clause 1(7) were to be revoked, particularly since orders can be revoked only in very limited circumstances.
However, we have considered this matter following amendments which were put down in Committee in another place and we believe it right to take steps to remove any possible ambiguity that there might be. Accordingly, this amendment seeks to replace clause 1(6) and 1(7) with a more general saving. This would ensure that if any adoption order made by a court in the United Kingdom or islands which, under clause 1(5), has conferred British citizenship, ceases to have effect, that shall not affect the claim of the subject of the adoption order to British citizenship. Thus the saving currently found in clause 1(6) and 1(7) for certain types of adoption order will, under this amendment, extend to all types of adoption order made by any court in this country where such orders have conferred British citizenship under the provisions of clause 1(5). This will, we believe, be much more straightforward and simpler and will avoid the complexities of the present provisions. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
Amendment No.35 is identical in effect. It is the equivalent provision in the scheme of British citizenship. Its purpose is to add to the Bill a similar safegaurd in the case of citizenship of the British dependent territories. I hope that the House will agree that that is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2. line 34, at end insert—
( ) If in the special circumstances of any particular case the Secretary of State thinks fit, he may for the purposes of subsection (4) treat the person to whom the application relates as fulfilling the requirement specified in that subsection although, as regards any one or more of the first ten years of that person's life, the number of days on which he was absent from the United Kingdom in that year or each of the years in question exceeds 90.

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 36.

Mr. Raison: Clause 1(1) provides that a child born in this country after commencement shall be a British citizen


only if one of his parents is a British citizen or is settled. Where neither parent is such a citizen or settled, clause 1(4) provides an entitlement to registration to a child who spends the first 10 years of his life here, provided that his absences from the country during his first 10 years do not exceed 90 days in any one year.
The new subsection (8), which this amendment introduces, enables the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit in the special circumstances of a particular case, to register someone under subsection (4) in cases where the applicant's absence or absences may exceed 90 days in any one year. This would introduce flexibility into the arrangements in subsection (4). It would enable registration to be effected in deserving cases where an applicant had exceeded his 90-day-a-year allowance through no fault of his own—a serious illness, for example.
I am sure that this amendment will be generally welcomed, and I call upon the House to agree to it.
Amendment No. 36 is the equivalent for citizenship of the British dependent territories. Again, I hope that the House will agree to it.

Mr. Tilley: I repeat that we welcome all the amendments, but we must break the convention of not being churlish. Apart from being descended from a long line of churls, I feel that I must make the point that the amendment goes nowhere near as far as we should like, although it moves in the right direction. With a few exceptions, that is true of every amendment here for consideration. The Government, having lost the argument, instead of reversing their position merely make tiny cosmetic changes that do not meet the objections, although they may appear to do so.
The amendment is a prime example of that. It is monstrous that children born here should be stateless for the first time in British history. It is also monstrous that they should have to wait 10 years before they can register as British citizens. Added to those two monstrosities is what I can only describe as the petty, bureaucratic and unworkable restriction that only 90 days of each of those 10 years can be spent outside the United Kingdom if someone is to qualify.
With a great flourish the Government announce a new flexibility in working the restrictions. It is a minor restriction compared with the monstrosities of statelessness created when children must wait so long before becoming registered citizens.
No action was taken by the Government here or elsewhere about the statelessness which has been created by the Bill. That is the central horror of the Bill. As the Minister of State made clear in Committee, the Government want to be able to deport the children as stateless. If, despite their parents' status, the children acquire Bitish citizenship through their birth, it might be difficult to deport them, because of current convention and possible future legal restrictions on the deportation of citizens.
There has been no action on the long delay—the 10-year wait—during which parents face uncertainty about their child's future. The child may be stigmatised at school. For example, if teachers intend taking a class abroad they may find that one of their pupils cannot obtain a passport because he or she is stateless. The leader of the 

ILEA, Bryn Davies, wrote to the Home Secretary on 31 July this year expressing disquiet about the terms of the Bill. He said:
There has been growing concern from parents and teachers in our schools that this Bill could lead to hardship amongst children … who have no experience of any other country other than the United Kingdom and speak no language other than English but then discover that they are not British subjects. The suffering arising for these children is a matter of grave concern not only to their families and teachers but is a matter on which we, as an education authority, must express deep disquiet.
Not only will it affect the particular children involved but it will make it more difficult to develop, in our education service, the understanding necessary to provide an education which has the confidence of the people of inner London.
That states the educational problem very clearly. I hope that the Minister, as a former member of the ILEA, will pay particular regard to that.
The central reason why the amendment is merely cosmetic is that the vast majority of children involved will have been deported. That will occur long before they get the chance to qualify in terms of the 10 years or to accumulate the number of necessary days per year spent in this country.
4.15 pm
The small change proposed in the amendment recognises what we have said before—the impossibility of proving how many days, within a 10-year period, a child spends in the United Kingdom. That is particularly so with children below school age. In our opinion, the original concession allowing registration after 10 years, was only cosmetic. The latest daub does not create a more convincing make-up.
Last night the Minister took me to task, when discussing the timetable motion, for suggesting that hundreds of children would be stateless each year. I remind the Minister of what he said in Committee:
if one supposed that 90 to 95 per cent. of the parents concerned were our citizens or were settled, that would still leave between 3,000 and 6,500 children born here each year to parents who are neither citizens nor settled."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 12 February 1981; c. 41.]
A large number of those children would have other nationalities because their parents would be jus sanguinis; although the parents were not in their country of origin, the children acquired the nationality of that country.
It is not unreasonable or wild to suggest that hundreds of those children, who may be as many as 6,500 a year according to the Minister's own estimates, would be born stateless in this country from the first year that the Bill commenced and in subsequent years.
I press the Minister to expand on his comment. Last night he had only a few minutes in which to conclude that I suspect that it would not have been in order for him to expand on the matter. The Government cannot have it both ways. They certainly cannot have it three ways. If only a small number of children are made stateless under the Bill, why on earth have the Government resisted, here and in the other place the amendment which would have provided that children born stateless would automatically become British? If it be such a tiny number, why are they bothering to dig in their heels?
The second possibility relates to a large number of children. If it be a large number, why do the Government not admit that they are creating a large number of stateless children in Britain for the first time?
The third possibility is equally untenable for the Government in the light of their actions. If the


Government state that it is impossible to say how many—if they intend to guess—they should not ask the House to pass legislation whose effect is unknown.
I should be grateful for the Minister's answers on those matters. However, we are not pinning our arguments on numbers. If one child is born stateless—we know at least one child will be born stateless under the Bill—that would be reason to oppose this part of the Bill. We welcome the amendment as a slight modification of an unjust clause, but we wish that the clause and the Bill had not been introduced in the first place.

Sir Albert Costain: The Minister knows that I have had correspondence with him on this point. What sort of travel document will the children get if they wish to go abroad? There are obviously provisions for them to go abroad. What sort of travel document will they be given if they are not travelling with a parent? That is a real problem in a constituency like mine, where a number of students come over to learn English. They sometimes marry English girls. Their place of origin has a political upset, they cannot return home and they become stateless. What documents will be given to these children to allow them to travel?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I agree that it is a narrow discretion given by the Lords amendment to the Secretary of State to widen the ambit of subsection (4). That is a useful provision and improves the clause.
I welcome the opportunity that has been given to the Minister of State to repudiate a lot of the nonsense that has been talked by others, including the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), about statelessness. Listening to the hon. Member one would suppose that those who were not British citizens were stateless. That is the sort of arrogance that has not been entirely absent from our debates on the Bill.

Mr. Tilley: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot have forgotten that only a few moments ago I said that a large proportion of the 3,000 to 6,500 children born of parents who were neither British citizens nor settled here would have another nationally because their parents would be able to bestow it upon them through the jus sanguinis. I did not say that all the children would be stateless, but my estimate of some hundreds is reasonable.

Mr. Powell: As I listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I noticed that they narrowed prismatically as he went on. He started with the most sweeping statements and ended up with a few hundreds. Indeed, I was not even sure that there were a few hundreds left by the end. That is the sort of misconception that has attached to the clause for a long time.
It must be the rarest thing for those who are temporarily resident in this country, being nationals of another country, who have a child born here not to be able to transmit that nationality or not to be able to secure travel documents for the child. I am not dealing with the revolution case which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) mentioned.
The idea that we should alter the principle of the Bill in order to deal with that minimal chance is absurd. As I read clause 3(1), it provides any Secretary of State with the necessary discretion—no conditions are applied to the

subsection—where actual statelessness occurs, and we are committed as a nation to do all that we can to avoid statelessness, and where the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe arise to put the matter right for the child affected.
I hope that the House would not be disposed to think that we should alter the basis of clause 1 in order to deal with cases which, as I am sure the Minister of State can show, are a vanishingly small proportion of children born here who will not become British citizens under the provisions of the clause as it stands

Mr. Raison: I am glad that the House welcomes the amendments that we are meant to be debating. The debate has broadened a little into the realms of statelessness, and what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has just said is essentially true. I agree with him that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) seemed to be rather like a concertina in his assessment of the problem of statelessness. It loomed larger at some points of his speech than at others.
The Bill is unlikely to cause statelessness except in the occasional case where another country's laws fail to give citizenship by descent, which may happen to a few children born here in the second generation outside their countries of origin.
I agree that discussion of clause 1 has been bedevilled by a widespread misunderstanding on the issue of statelessness. I have noticed that in another place and in public discussions outside the most extravagant claims have been made about the extent to which the Bill will create statelessness among people born here. That will occur in very few cases indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) raised a significant practical problem. The answer is that the great majority of children born here who do not acquire British citizenship will have another citizenship and will be able to get a passport from the country of which they are citizens. If they are stateless, they will be able to turn to the Home Office for travel documents and that will solve the problem. I think that I have covered the main points raised in our short debate, and I hope that the House will approve the amendment.

Mr. Tilley: By leave of the House and having been described as a prismatic concertina—to put the two insults together—I should like to answer the points made in the debate.
The Minister has not been able to substantiate his point, and the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was not substantiated other than in generalities. If the Government do not know the numbers involved, they are at fault.
My position can be attacked on the ground that I do not have the information to make a close and accurate estimate—any more than it appears that the Government have such information—but my position has at least been consistent. I referred to a few hundreds both in Committee and in last night's debate, and Hansard will prove that I referred to a few hundreds this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
O In this section and elsewhere in this Act "settled" has the meaning given by section 49.

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. 


The amendment seeks to add to clause 1 a new subsection which draws to the attention of the reader that the term "settled", as used in clause 1 and elsewhere, is defined in clause 49, the interpretation clause. The amendment arises from a suggestion made in another place and is intended to be helpful to the reader by warning him that "settled", which is a word in common usage and with an ordinary meaning, has, for the purposes of the Bill, a technical meaning as set out in clause 49.

Mr. Tilley: This is the Humpty Dumpty amendment, which makes it clear that words mean what the Minister and the draftsman say they mean rather than what they mean in common language.
That is not a new element in the Bill or in immigration law. The definition of "settled" is peculiar, to say the least, in cases that have already occurred. We are glad that another place forced the Government to come clean and to make it clear that "settled" has not its everyday or common sense meaning, but a technical, legal meaning.
While making a clean breast of it, the Government should also admit that no one knows what the legal meaning is. In another place the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Belstead, came near to admitting that during a discussion of the meaning of "ordinarily resident", which is one of the component parts of the meaning of "settled". I understand that, even within the past couple of weeks, the Court of Appeal has spent four days trying to sort out the meaning of "ordinarily resident" in a case involving students—not an immigration case. The court has not yet given its decision.
In fact, the amendment is not telling people much. It is a pointer into the labyrinth of immigration law, but it does not point the way out. Perhaps it will simply mean that lay men and women who read the Bill will realise that they are confused when they get not to clause 49, as would have been the case with the Bill as it left this place, but to clause 1. To the degree that the amendment exposes the nature of the Bill we support it.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It would not be right to allow the speech by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) to pass without criticism. It may be that courts debate the precise meaning of "ordinarily resident", but, if so, that is because some people claim that it does not apply to them. Like any other formula in the law, it is well recognised, but often debated and disputed. It is untrue to say that there is any real difficulty about the phrase. It has been accepted in the law for many years, and it would be wrong to give the impression that it is vague, uncertain or lacking in definition.
There is a definition which is known to the courts through established cases over many years. I suspect that it is the intention of some people—I do not accuse the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central of being one—further to discredit the Bill by suggesting that some concepts are not perfectly clear. This one is.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

ACQUISITION BY DESCENT

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
; or
(c) is a British citizen and is serving outside the United

Kingdom in service under a Community institution, his or her recruitment for that service having taken place in a country which at the time of recruitment was a member of the Communities.

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords on the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Mr. Raison: Lords amendment No. 5 reflects the strong feeling that was expressed, particularly in another place, that our links with the Community should be accorded more specific recognition. It equates British citizens working in Community institutions with British citizens in Crown service and service designated under clause 2(3) as closely associated with Crown service. That means that the children of such people will be British citizens automatically at birth. The children will be citizens otherwise than by descent.
The Government reached the conclusion that service in a Community institution could rightly be set apart for special treatment in the way proposed. Our links with our Community partners under Community treaties are special and different in character from the other international organisations of which we are members. We have only to consider the impact of Community legislation on our domestic legislation. It can have a direct effect. Moreover, service in a Community institution, provided recruitment for the service took place in Community territory, is a certain criterion to enable citizenship to be transmitted immediately at birth without a registration process.
Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are minor amendments essentially consequential on amendment No. 5, which I have just explained. If the House wishes me to elaborate on them, I shall do so.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I cannot allow this amendment to be passed without pausing to regret that, in deciding that it was necessary to apply these provisions to British citizens working for the European Community, the Government did not extend the same provisions to people working for the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and other international organisations. The terms of service, although not the pay, of staff working for the Council of Europe and the Western European Union are comparable with those of people working for the Community. There is much in common in the activities of the two bodies. It is fair to say that the European Community might not exist if it had not been for the pioneering work of the Council of Europe. There is also the vital continuing work of the Council of Europe in areas such as the European Commission on Human Rights and so on. British citizens give full and active service to bodies of which we are members.
It is regrettable that the Government did not respond to the equally strong pressure in another place by my noble Friend Lord Avebury and others to include the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. The Government are doing a disservice to British citizens working in such institutions. They should at least set on record that they do not regard such service any less favourably than service in institutions of the European Community.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I sat on the Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for


many long hours, but this matter was never raised. It is said that their Lordships were anxious that the matter should be brought forward. Why were they so anxious? Was it, perhaps, on direct orders from Brussels and that our budget refunds would not be forthcoming if we did not introduce this provision? Was it some sort of diabolical harmonisation measure? Do other Community countries have this provision, or will it exist solely in United Kingdom legislation? Perhaps it has something to do with the amour propre of that fifth column for the greater glory of Europe and subjection of the United Kingdom—the Members of the European Assembly. It is puzzling to hon. Members who sat on the Committee. It did not seem necessary before, but it seems to be necessary now.
What problems will it build up for the future? I shall give the House an example. Let us take a transient member of the Community, such as Greece. Suppose my sister married a Greek gentleman and decided to make her life in Greece. Suppose she had given birth to his children, and they had been brought up in the Greek way of life, taught to speak the Greek language and had not spoken English at school or done very much about their English culture or nationality. They would, of course, have been entitled to British citizenship. Suppose one of those children, a daughter, then married a Greek, had a child and at some stage in her career worked in the library of the EEC in Athens. Under this provision, as I understand it, that child would be entitled to British citizenship. That may or may not be reasonable.
What about the many other people who in similar circumstances might wish to claim British citizenship? Might they not suggest that they had been through such processes? How shall we in the United Kingdom be able to validate or verify such claims? In other words, we are putting decisions on our citizenship in the hands of other institutions—some of which we have a degree of control over now, but over which in future we shall have no control which may not have an adequate system of recording to enable us to guarantee that claims for British citizenship by people who have little claim to it are valid.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Some, if not all, of the anxieties of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) are well founded. If one reads the amendment in the context of the clause, it is clear that it treats service to the Community as equivalent to service to Her Majesty. In so doing their Lordships have fallen into an absurdity. Of course, the expression
recruitment for that service having taken place in the United Kingdom.
is logical in clause 2(1)(b) because we are seeking to ensure that service to the United Kingdom is directly related to the belonging of the person to the United Kingdom. The words have their logical position in the clause as unamended.
However, it is absurd to say that service to the Community by a British citizen shall be treated as equivalent to service to the Crown for the purposes of this clause, provided that that person was recruited in one of the Community countries. If he was recruited in Portugal, not Luxembourg, we say that Community service is not equivalent to service to the Crown, although the individual is a British citizen and all the arguments about our connection with the Community adduced by the Minister

of State are equally valid. This is a thoughtless and ill-considered extension of the notion of national service abroad by British citizens.
I do not suppose there will be a sufficient head of steam today to reject this amendment on the grounds that I share with the hon. Member for Northampton, North. However, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke about putting certain points on the record, and I should like to put one matter on record.
There is, I am sure, somewhere on the interstices and penetralia of the Government someone who is making a note of legislation that will have to be amended when this country ceases to be a member of the EEC, as assuredly it will in the foreseeable future. He might, unless the matter was noted now, fail to observe that clause 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by this Lords amendment, is one of the consequentials that will have to be incorporated in the legislation that will repeal the European Communities Act 1972. I am sure that the individual—I have a picture of him in my mind—who accumulates this essential drafting information is such a diligent reader of Hansard that these remarks will not have fallen upon stony ground.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I was not a member of the Committee, but I appreciate that this is a complex Bill. This amendment appears to be ridiculous and I do not believe that anything that the Minister has said has removed that sentiment.
Why has this provision been inserted? The only reason the Minister gave was, not that anyone had asked for it, but simply that the Government wanted to give a special category status to anything associated with the EEC. The whole object of the Bill has been essentially to try to clarify the law and make it sensible. As an outsider, I understood that the Government were trying to ensure that people who were British would be British citizens and that people who were eminently not British in common sense parlance would not.
It would appear to me that there is a possibility that someone who is in a foreign country and who does not speak a word of English, and who might by a series of accidents have a British grandmother or grandfather, might be able to get British citizenship simply through having a temporary job in a Community institution.
It should be borne in mind that Community institutions are mushrooming all over the place. Having paid a brief visit to the EEC, I have been appalled at the way in which it spends money like water in setting up institutions. The Government are being very careful about expenditure, yet here is an organisation which appears to spend money as though it has gone out of fashion. We have no indication of how many institutions might be set up by the EEC in the future, or of how many countries might become members in the future.
I have several specific questions to put to the Minister. Does he accept that under the amendment there will be a number of people—perhaps a substantial number—given British citizenship who are eminently not British in any respect whatever, not speaking our language, not having lived in our country, and not being British in any realistic sense?
Does the Minister accept that there could well be foreign families living abroad in which one child has become a British citizen because the mother or father were at one time working for a Community institution, but


where the other members of the family would not be British citizens? The Minister has said that the object is to clarify the law, to make it sensible and to remove anomalies. In those circumstances, surely it would be ridiculous to have a family living in Greece, in Spain—in the future—or in Luxembourg, in which one child or two children were British citizens, although they did not speak a word of our language, and in which other members of the same family were not British citizens. Surely that would not be sensible in any way.
What is the position in regard to associate members of the Community? Does the term "member of the Communities" exclude associate members altogether? What will be the position if we have a new relationship for the United Kingdom which is neither full membership nor associate membership?
My next question relates to elementary justice. I find it difficult to see why we should put a provision in the Bill only because the Minister and the Government regard the Common Market as something very special, so that thereby we make foreign children who have never been in our country and who do not speak our language full British citizens. There are many people who are serving Britain abroad in different ways, who are eminently British, who speak our language, who are descended from people born in this country, who have perhaps been working for the Salvation Army or as missionaries or for banks or insurance companies, or perhaps engaged in work for British companies in the Far East, who will not themselves have an automatic right to British citizenship. Their position has to be compared with that of those who will have British citizenship just because of a grandparent who came from this country and because of getting a job in a library, a canteen, or some other part of a Community institution.
What does the Minister mean by recruitment into the service? Is he referring to first secretaries earning £20,000 a year and with big pensions, or is he referring to anyone who works in any capacity for a Community institution? Are we talking about cleaners, people who serve in canteens, people who work in libraries, and people who are major Eurocrats? Does the Minister accept that the amendment covers anyone serving in any capacity in any Community institution?
What does the Minister define as a Community institution? Is he thinking simply of the Parliament and the Commission, or is he thinking of the whole range of so-called educational or propaganda institutions that are mushroooming all the time?
4.45 pm
My feeling is that any benefit of any sort that the Government think might come from the amendment will be lost by the undermining of the basic principle of the measure. I can see no benefit of any sort coming to anyone, and it would appear that the Government have introduced it only because they want to show that we are more European than others have thought us to be.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those specific questions. Perhaps I shall be permitted to summarise them briefly. Does "recruitment for service" mean for any service of any sort with any institutions set up now or to be set up? Does the Minister agree that it undermines the principle of the Bill that children who are not British and do not speak our language, have never been to our country and have no relationship directly with our

country, should become British citizens? Does the Minister accept that there will be what one might call mixed families, and that if someone has a job in a Community institution—working in the canteen, for example—for two or three years, some of the children will be British and some will not? Does the Minister agree that it is eminently unjust to single out those who are working temporarily for a Community institution whereas many people who are doing valuable work for Britain abroad in banks, insurance companies and businesses will be automatically excluded? Are we thinking here only of the full members or are we considering also the associates?
It would seem to be ridiculous to have an amendment that will bring in confusion when the whole object is to remove confusion from our nationality laws. Unless the Minister can give good reasons for the amendment, I hope that he will think again and seek leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Tilley: I am relieved to hear that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) believes that the Labour Party will carry out its election promises about withdrawal from the Common Market. I say that particularly in the context of last night's debate, when the right hon. Member said that he did not believe that a future Labour Government would repeal this measure. However, I am glad that he appears to be coming round more to our point of view.
The points made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), concerning various aspects of definition, were examined to some extent in Committee. Bearing in mind what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I am sure that none of us would want to snatch the bread from the mouths of hon. and learned Members who will no doubt be spending a good deal of time in the courts in deciding and defining what the measure really means. I hope that the Minister will not kill too many of the golden geese by giving too simple or too direct an answer to the various questions.
The Opposition are not particularly keen on the amendment, although we do not intend to oppose it. We are not in favour, on principle, of extending automatic succession rights beyond a second generation, which is what the amendment seeks to do. We feel that any sustained objection would be academic as the likely period ensuing between the commencement of the legislation and British withdrawal from the EEC will be so short that it is impossible to conceive that it might affect a second generation of Eurocrats or—if they will excuse the phrase—"Eurocrats". We do not think that the children of those people misguided enough to work in the Community should be penalised. After all, we do not want to have all coming back via a by-election in Warrington or in any other way.

Mr. Raison: There appear to have been two slants to the debate. First, we had the views of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is an enthusiast for the EEC. Secondly, we had contributions from several hon. Members who seem to be rather less enthusiastic about the EEC. Indeed, some of them seem to be so convinced that we are about to depart from the Community within a very short space of time that it would seem to be hardly worth while for me to answer their questions.
I have to tell the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that I am not aware that there is any unit


tucked away in the recesses of Whitehall which is clocking up amendments which would have to be repealed if, by any mischance, we were to leave the Community. On the other hand, if that moment were ever to arrive, the apotheosis of the right hon. Gentleman would come about, because he would be able to spring up in his full glory and reel off every single amendment to an entranced House without once pausing for breath. No doubt we shall rely on him in this matter, if not in many other matters.
It is perhaps not too churlish to say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that he tabled amendments which were not selected and which were designed to achieve the intention of his speech. As a good parliamentarian, he was not deterred by that from raising the matters that he would have raised had the amendments been selected. Ultimately, one has to make up one's mind whether our relationship with the European Community is of a special nature and whether it is not rather different in substance from other important relationships and participation in other important institutions.
The key must be, for better or worse—the right hon. Member for Down, South will say for the worse—that the European Community has a direct impact on the laws of our land in a way that those other admirable institutions do not. That gives them what I believe is a genuine difference of quality. There are many other admirable organisations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, but one could easily put forward other organisations throughout the world with which we have a special relationship or in which we participate. In my view, the decision that was taken in the other place is the right one—that the Community is of a different, very special nature compared with all the others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) complained that the matter was not raised in Standing Committee. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he complained that it was raised in another place. My hon. Friend felt that we behaved respectably by not discussing it. However, we cannot stop the noble Lords from raising fresh matters in another place. The justification for a second Chamber is that it brings forward fresh issues. I cannot say more than that.
My hon. Friend worked out, as he has done before, some rather ingenious relationships to test the proposition that is under discussion. This ingenious relationship of conferral of citizenship was correct. I cannot trip him up in his assumptions. It was a somewhat improbable relationship and not one that is likely to occur often, but I do not deny that it might occur. However, as always when dealing with difficult matters of nationality, if one tries to work out improbable relationships, even within the general philosophy of the Bill, it is not too difficult to find cases. It is amazingly difficult to have 100 per cent. cast-iron certainty. We have consistently tried to do our best in seeking what might be called meaningful relationships, close connections and so on, but from time to time there will be examples that point otherwise. If one admits to British citizenship anyone who is not actually born and resident in this country, such possibilities may arise. We should bear that in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked a number of questions, which I hope that I have understood. I accept that in some cases there is the

possibility of split families. I do not dispute that, but it is important to point out, as I did on many occasions in Committee, that where there are grievous anomalies and real hardship within a family and real nonsenses and a feeling among some children that they have been grossly disadvantaged, there is always the discretionary power of the Secretary of State under the important clause 3(1) to remedy such nonsenses. So if there is a hard luck case, it is perfectly possible to tackle it.
My hon. Friend asked about associated members. It is not likely that a British citizen would be recruited for these purposes in the territory of an associated State. For the most part, recruitment will take place in the area where the activity takes place, be it Brussels or elsewhere. I am prepared to give the matter more consideration, although obviously at this stage it is not possible to remedy it in legislation. However, I will look into the matter again and write to my hon. Friend when we have considered it further.
Community service was mentioned. If need be, I could give the House a full list of the different organisations which qualify for this, but anyone who has considered the Community structure will have a rough idea of what Community service entails.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I was simply asking whether Community service included the whole range of employment. Could it, for example, include someone who worked temporarily in a canteen in Athens, as well as a leading civil servant in Brussels?

Mr. Raison: I think that the answer is "Yes", if they are full-time servants of the Community. Perhaps I can come back to the matter shortly.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) raised the issue of countries with associated status in the Community. At the moment certain countries have associated status, but who knows which countries will have associated status in the future? Under these provisions it is possible that masses of people could come in. This is a highly dangerous, significant, sensitive and damaging amendment. My hon. Friend is going through some of the potential difficulties and disadvantages, but he says nothing about the desirability, apart from the fact that the noble Lords have put forward this suggestion. Because the Government did not want to offend anyone in the Community or the amour propre of people with a vested interest in the Community, we seem to have become loaded with this issue. Surely my hon. Friend can see the dangers that are involved and do the responsible thing and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Raison: The general principle of the amendment was debated fully, and it was clear from the debates in another place who was pressing the argument most vigorously. The issue attracted a great deal of attention in the other place, but it also attracted much attention outside. I am sure that many of us have had in our postbags strong and heated representations from people who are thoroughly British and who are deeply concerned about the future of our country. They said that they felt that they were working for our country, had the essential characteristics of the British, and felt that it was wrong that the Community to which we are committed through Act of Parliament, subsequently endorsed by referendum, should be treated as having some special status.


It could be argued, I suppose, that the European Community will spread and spread, although broadly speaking I think that it is limited to Europe. However, it is a little unrealistic of my hon. Friend to talk in terms of an ever-expanding universe which will eventually take in everyone. We should remember that we as a country have aligned ourselves with this organisation. We should think of it in terms of a young man considering his career. He might say "I wish to serve the country by entering the Crown service here", or he might say "I wish to serve the nation by entering the service of the Community institutions." We believe that there is enough in common between the two to justify their being treated in the same manner.

Mr. Beith: Although I do not accept the rigid distinction between public service in Community institutions and service in other institutions of which we are a member, perhaps the Minister will place on record that the considerations which he has just described must have weighed heavily with Lord Elystan-Morgan in another place when he welcomed the original amendment on behalf of the Labour Benches.

Mr. Raison: It is not for me to diagnose the views of Lord Elystan-Morgan. He is a very articulate Welshman, and I am sure that he made his views clear. To be honest, I cannot remember what they were, so I had better not embark on trying to describe them.
The essential point is that one has to make up one's mind. If one hates the Community and all its works, I can well understand that one could take any opportunity to have a go at it and would regard it as being something extraneous from the main direction in which we are moving. However, as a country we have committed ourselves to this course. The amendment is in line with that.
As to the specific point of whether particular sorts of employment count, the answer is that it depends whether it is employment with a Community institution. There is not a kind of cut-off. There is nothing that says that only top civil servants or splendid chaps of one kind or another are eligible for this. If one serves in a Community institution, one is eligible.
I have tried to meet the points that have been raised. It is our firm view that the decision taken in another place to introduce the amendment was the right decision. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: MINORS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—


 "A person born outside the United Kingdom shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a British citizen made within the period of twelve months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the requirements specified in subsection (3) or, in the case of a person born stateless, the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection, are fulfilled in the case of either that person's father or his mother ("the parent in question").
 The requirements referred to in subsection (2) are—

 that the parent in question was a British citizen by descent at the time of the birth; and
 that the father or mother of the parent in question—


 was a British citizen otherwise than by descent at the time of the birth of the parent in question; or
 became a British citizen otherwise than by descent at commencement, or would have become such a citizen otherwise than by descent at commencement but for his or her death; and

 that, as regards some period of three years ending with a date not later than the date of the birth—

 the parent in question was in the United Kingdom at the beginning of that period; and
 the number of days on which the parent in question was absent from the United Kingdom in that period does not exceed 270.


 If in the special circumstances of any particular case the Secretary of State thinks fit, he may treat subsection (2) as if the reference to twelve months were a reference to six years."

5 pm

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9, 37 and 40.

Mr. Raison: Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 9 replace the existing provisions in clause 3(2) and related subsections for the acquisition of British citizenship by those born abroad to British citizens by descent. As it left this House, clause 3(2) conferred an entitlement to British citizenship on those born abroad to British citizens by descent who had certain ties with this country. In particular, there were certain specified types of relevant employment overseas at the time of the child's birth.
As hon. Members may recall, the categories of employment relevant for this purpose were considerably widened when the Bill was considered by this House on an earlier occasion. Nevertheless, considerable criticism was made of the provisions of clause 3 in another place and by a range of outside organisations. It was argued that the employment criterion did not cover all British citizens overseas who had real ties with this country, such as the self-employed or partners, that people might have continued strong connections with this country even where they were working for a foreign firm or, indeed, not working at all, that the provisions were uncertain, relying as they did on factors such as "close connection" with the United Kingdom which were undefined, and that they were so complicated that those about to work overseas would not easily be able to ascertain in advance the likely effect on themselves and their children.
The attempt made in clause 3 as it left this House to define an employment connection with the United Kingdom was a determined attempt to provide for the very small number of cases where, given the extension of transmission rights to the female line, people with a genuine connection with this country would be unable to pass on citizenship to their children born overseas. Nevertheless, we have been persuaded by the criticisms made of these provisions that it would be best to change our approach to this very difficult question. We therefore brought forward in another place these amendments, which provide a clear entitlement to registration for the child born overseas in the second generation. Application for citizenship must be made within a period of 12 months from the date of the birth, although there is provision in a new subsection (4) for extension of that period to six years if, in the special circumstances of a particular case, the Secretary of State thinks fit. 


The requirements which must be met for registration to be affected are that one of the parents was a British citizen by descent at the time of the birth and born to a British citizen otherwise than by descent or—and this, of course, will be the position in the great majority of cases for many years—a person who became a British citizen otherwise than by descent at commencement or would have done so but for his death. That is in proposed new subsection (3)(b)(ii). Unless the child is born stateless, the parent who is a citizen by descent must also have resided in the United Kingdom at any time in the past for a period of three years, although it would be permissible for the parent to have been absent during that period for not more than 270 days.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends, particularly the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), for their advice and interest in this matter and for the helpfulness of the way in which they have led us to reach what I believe is a good solution to what, by any standard, is a very tricky problem.
As I am sure hon. Members will have noted, this provision gives an absolute entitlement to a child born stateless in the second generation overseas. The Government accept that it could happen that the child of two British citizens by descent, both born overseas and in the first generation, could be stateless and that in some cases—in Belgium, for example—the child could be stateless even if its mother held the citizenship of its country of birth. There are, of course, respectable arguments for believing that this is not entirely a problem for which the United Kingdom should find the solution. Nevertheless, the Government are prepared, as the reference to statelessness in this amendment demonstrates, to ensure that no one in the second generation born overseas is stateless.
That completes the explanation of the effect of these two amendments, but it may be helpful if I refer briefly to the effect of later, related amendments. We are conscious that there may be cases which are not covered by clause 3 as we should like to see it amended, but where the connection with the United Kingdom may be so strong as to merit registration Clause 3(1) provides, of course, for the registration of any minor at the Secretary of State's discretion, and we would propose to use that subsection sympathetically, not only for children born in the second generation overseas who are not covered by clause 3 as amended, but also for children in the third and subsequent generations born overseas where there are clear and strong United Kingdom links, or compassionate circumstances. It is, however, the case that anyone registered under clause 3(1) as it stands would be a citizen otherwise than by descent, and this seems illogical when we are stretching a point for children who are descended more remotely than the second generation. We are therefore bringing forward amendments to clause 13 which will ensure that where a child born overseas is registered and is descended from a British citizen, he shall be a British citizen by descent. That seems only logical and sensible, because otherwise a child whose connections by descent are remote, to say the least, would be in a more favourable position than a child born abroad in the first generation overseas.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to comment on how we see the exercise of the discretion under clause 3(1) in respect of children born overseas to British citizens by descent. Before children born overseas in the second and subsequent generations were registered, the strength of the

child's connections with this country would be assessed. In considering whether to exercise the discretion in these circumstances the Secretary of State will take into account the special problems facing British business families in long-term service overseas. By "British business families" I mean people in British companies or firms or in employment with strong British connections. The special problems of such British business families will thus be an important matter for consideration in this discretion.
These amendments offer a clear and unambiguous entitlement to registration for children born in the second generation overseas, and it seems to us most unlikely that anyone with a genuine close connection with this country would be left out by them.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 40 replace the existing provisions in clause 16(2) and related subsections for the acquisition of citizenship of the British dependent territories by those born abroad to citizens of the British dependent territories by descent. They are the equivalent for citizenship of the British dependent territories of earlier Lords amendments to clause 3 with which the House has already seen fit to agree. I hope, therefore, that they will be acceptable.
I commend this group of amendments to the House.

Mr. Tilley: We welcome the amendments, which completely scrap the employment and close connection criteria that the Government originally attempted to impose as the basis for citizenship by descent. There is now a simple three-year residence rule for second generation transmission abroad. We must suspend our churlishness—if only for a moment—and extend our sympathy to the Minister. He has had to eat everything that he said in Committee. For about 100 columns of Hansard the Minister tried to justify the other system. However, I do not criticise him and I acknowledge that the Government have thought again. They have carried out a radical change largely as a result of pressure from Britons abroad, the points made in Committee and the way in which the anomalies and confusions were pointed out in the other place.
The Government have returned to square one and the system has been vastly improved in terms of clarity and workability. However, I wish to make several comments. As I have said, we are not keen on wider second-generation transmission. We feel that it should not be as easy as it might be in some cases, where we would consider the connection remote. I refer to the cases covered by the new set of amendments. The new qualifications are easier for some groups of British citizens abroad to acquire than for others. If a child born abroad to British citizens can transfer his or her British citizenship to his children—if the person has spent three years in Britain—the provision will benefit those families that can afford to send their children to the United Kingdom to attend schools, public schools, universities and even polytechnics. That will not be easy for many of the others involved.
The case of the Falkland Islanders may be raised later. The great majority of them are British citizens who will lose their right to transmit British citizenship because, as humble sheep farmers, they will not be able to send their sons and daughters to public or private schools in Britain.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tilley: I thought that I might catch a fish.

Mr. Shersby: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. Is he not aware that a Government scheme exists whereby those children in the Falkland Islands who have taken their O-levels in schools in Port Stanley can come to Britain and take their A-levels at a school in Rye, where their fees are paid by the British Government? Therefore, there is no question of Falkland Islanders being unable to obtain for their children just as good an education at State-maintained schools as any citizen in this country.

Mr. Tilley: I was not aware of that scheme. The result of it will probably be that those children who take three years to do their A-levels will qualify, while those who take two years will return to the Falkland Islands without an opportunity to transmit their citizenship. That is a matter for them to consider.
Many of those concerned about other aspects of the Bill are struck by the stark contrast between the effort that the Government have made to be fair to British business families—predominantly white, middle-class people living abroad—and the shabby treatment given to black British people both at home and abroad. As a result of the amendments, white expatriates and their grandchildren will have extra transmission rights if the second generation go to prep schools or public schools in the United Kingdom, or even to Rye grammar school. Before the introduction of this Bill the East African Asians had exactly the same passport as the whites. However, they will find that they cannot transmit their British citizenship to their children, let alone to their grandchildren.
The Minister raised a significant point about the Belgian nationality laws. He said that although the Belgians were responsible for the fact that their laws created statelessness, we should do something to ensure that they did not affect British citizens.

Sir Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the East Africans have had the same passports as the British. The East African Asian's passport is stamped to the effect that it does not confer the right of abode in Britain.

Mr. Tilley: I said that East African Asians had the same passports because in Home Office parlance East African Asians are known as United Kingdom passport holders. That is what they are, and they hold the same passport.
Because of the nationality laws, first generation children in Malawi born to United Kingdom passport holders will be stateless. The Government have set their face against making any provision for that. They say that that is Malawi's fault. However, when the same situation occurs in Belgium special provision is made for those children who might fall foul of its nationality laws. That is a stark contrast. In making the comparison we must question the fairness involved. The Government are adding to the substantial rights of British citizens, but neither here nor elsewhere have they given a single right to those British overseas citizens who are 100 per cent. black or brown skinned to transmit citizenship.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I welcome the amendment to clause 3, because it is right that the change should be made. In addition, Governments who have the vision to change their mind and to be persuaded should be

congratulated. Furthermore, I have a vested interest in the clause and I drew it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister when we debated the Bill. If one were to ask the man on top of the celebrated Clapham omnibus which groups of people most exemplified British citizenship, he would probably say that Members of Parliament were British and that they need have no concern about their "Britishness" or that of their families. However, he would have made a gross mistake in my case. My second son was born in the United States of America. If he had followed the pattern of his father's life, his second son—my grandson—would not have been a British citizen according to the original clause 3. That is—both personally and in principle—nonsense.

Sir Ronald Bell: There was an hon. Member called Brian Harrison. His parents had been abroad for two generations and he was not a British citizen with an entitlement to a right of abode. Every time that he returned to Britain he had to assert that he was a Member of Parliament and could not be kept out.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for having given a better example than mine. However, he will understand that it does not have the emotional appeal that my example had for the hon. Member for Peterborough.
It was fundamentally wrong for the Government to proceed with the original clause 3. Therefore, this provision is to be welcomed. However, my one regret is that the logic and moral rectitude of the new clause 3 did not convince my hon. Friend when we debated the original clause in the House.
I welcome the change, but I would have welcomed it more if it had been made in this House and not in the other place. Because the amendment was moved in the other place, a few people may assume that the Government were prompted to change their mind not by logic or moral rectitude, but by head counting. That would represent an unwarranted slur on my hon. Friend the Minister. Nevertheless, by the nature of the proceedings it may stick on the Home Office. I hope that that will not be the case but the possibility, remote though it may be, has not been lost on this side of the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in regretting that this amendment is being made at so late a stage. The alteration in the Bill is far reaching and it is most unfortunate that it has not been debated and appraised by the House in a way that it would have been had it been proposed at an earlier stage. We are back with a vengeance to what in years gone by—10 years ago to be exact—was known as the grandmother clause. We have it back again now.
It was in the original form of the Immigration Bill in 1971. It stirred great indignation almost universally on the Opposition side and caused great unease on the Government Benches at that time. It was removed—not without vestige—during the Committee stage thanks to the assistance which I received from the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), although some of its effects were maintained by the immigration rules which in their substance ran counter in this respect to the decision which the House had taken during Committee.
If we agree to this amendment we shall have the following situation. Let us consider the case of one individual. Neither of his parents was born in the United


Kingdom. Of their four parents only one, a grandmother, was born in the United Kingdom. All the other grandparents could well be not just Australians but, indeed, aliens. Now we are saying that, provided one of his parents spends three years before the time of his birth on and off in the United Kingdom, that individual, in right of a grandmother born in the United Kingdom, is to be a British citizen. I believe that it is a serious departure from the general structure both of the Bill and of our nationality law hitherto that we should conceive that one grandmother is sufficient by descent to confer the privilege of being a British subject on the grandchild—and I know that there is a minimal residential qualification on the way.
This is a principle which should not be hurriedly imposed on the Bill at this stage. Of course, the pressure has arisen from persons whose parents and grandparents were not exactly as I have described in my example. In most cases there was probably one other ancestor who had a close connection with the United Kingdom, and in almost all cases the ancestors would have been white. But that is not the decision that we are taking here. The decision that we are taking today is that, subject to the residential qualification of three years in the case of one of the parents—the transmitting parent—one grandparent born in the United Kingdom is sufficient by descent to confer United Kingdom nationality.
I believe that that is a most unwise step to take. I believe that it will result in all kinds of people who have no natural allegiance or connection with this country claiming British nationality. It gives an extension to the jus sanguinis which is out of accord with the rest of our nationality law.

Mr. Raison: We have had a debate about one of the most difficult and, in some ways, most important aspects of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) had not said that he did not want to be churlish, I should have been tempted to be a little churlish with him. One can say fairly that on the whole question of citizenship by descent the Opposition have sat on their hands. They have said little about what they believe to be right. Occasionally they have made a few cracks about what they believe to be wrong about our proposals, but they have not faced up to the question.
For some reason which I do not understand, the Opposition have taken the view that the matter does not concern them and they have tried to duck the whole issue. Anybody who thinks about the principles of citizenship and nationality is bound to come to the view that one of the basic ingredients of citizenship and nationality will always be descent. There are certain fundamental aspects. The jus soli, jus sanguinis argument has highlighted two of the ways of acquiring citizenship. One is through birth and the other through descent. There are other ways of acquiring citizenship—by residence conveyed through naturalisation, by marriage, and so on. However, to duck the issue is regrettable.
It is a little naive to take the view that there should be no mechanism by which descent is conferred on the second generation born abroad. That view is out of line with nearly all the other citizenship schemes in the world. The jus sanguinis is qualified by certain countries in particular ways but it is still a system by which citizenship passes by descent. 


The Bill in some ways is a compromise in this matter. The outcome is, by any standards, much the most sensible of the various proposals for tackling the problem. I understand why the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says that this is a bit late in the day. However, late though it might be, we have come up with the right answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said that it was a pity that the answer came in another place rather than here. So be it. If we support the existence of another place, as I and my party do, we must accept that it has a useful role to play. There is no reason why important and desirable amendments should not be made there.
The reason we did not discuss such an amendment here was that there was no such amendment to discuss. Some amendments were designed to prolong the system of consular registration, which has been a familiar part of our law. We did not feel happy about the proposals, although we compromised with a partial transitional extension of consular registration which, incidentally, remains in the Bill. It was not until a relatively late stage in proceedings that what I believe to be the right amendment was proposed. I apologise if anybody is unhappy about how we came to the present position, but I genuinely believe that we now have as realistic an answer as is possible.
I note what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about the history of the grandmother clause and the debate that we had in 1971 about grandpatrials and the immigration rules. The right hon. Gentleman can claim consistency. However, I cannot accept his notion that this is a serious departure from the Bill's structure. I am not sure that I can even accept that it is a serious departure from nationality law. The system of consular registration has been part of our citizenship law. That has been a mechanism for conferring citizenship by descent through the generations. I note that the right hon. Gentleman was careful to talk about grandmothers, because I know that he holds strongly the view that we are making a mistake by extending citizenship through the female line. We argued that at some length in Committee. I take a different view from the right hon. Gentleman. I think that we are right to extend citizenship through the female line.
To put that on one side, there was a system by which it was possible for the second generation born abroad to acquire citizenship. The Bill provides a system by which that is possible. That is desirable but it is not an open-ended acquisition of citizenship. The Bill does not provide that everyone in the second generation born abroad will be entitled automatically to citizenship. We have imported into the Bill a test of connection with this country which we believe to be a practical and working one. I refer to the three-year residential requirement. 
5.30 pm
I understand the arguments that have been advanced in this interesting and short debate. However, I am convinced that the scheme that is before us is the right one. I hope that the House will support me in that view.

Mr. Stanbrook: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to the House for not rising in my place when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) concluded his speech. My attention was temporarily diverted. I must apologise to my hon. Friend for not enabling him to take account of my remarks.


I am one of those who have been strongly critical of the provisions which appeared to prejudice the position of Britons by descent, British communities abroad which were being deprived in the Bill, and still will be ultimately, of the right to consular registration. I acknowledge that by the amendment the Government seem to have gone a long way towards meeting the legitimate criticisms and anxieties of British communities abroad.
The original anxiety concerned those who would be Britons by descent on the enactment of the Bill. Under the Bill as drafted, their children would not automatically have been British. That caused a great deal of disquiet to those living abroad who formerly had assumed that they could continue citizenship throughout the generations by the process of registration. By the amendment, we must accept, the Government have acknowledged the problem. They have not removed it entirely but, as I understand the amendment, such a person being British by descent will be able to register the birth of his child, and the child will be British by descent provided that the parent has been three years in this country. That seems a reasonable way of preserving the connection.
However, I contend that we are going too far. We are diluting the concept of British citizenship in this way as in many others. When the Bill was first published, I approved of its contents, although I had some reservations about some of its provisions. However, there were some good parts and there was a great need to define British citizenship. As the Bill has passed through the parliamentary process it has constantly been modified and its terms have been loosened.
We have reached the stage at which no close qualifying connection is needed to pass on citizenship from one generation to another. I should prefer the qualifying period to be much longer than three years. Three years is insufficient. It means that some who have no real connection with Britain, but who are by the process of law Britons by descent, will be able to come to the country for three years and, being British people, will thereby be entitled without let or hindrance to pass on their British citizenship indefinitely.
British citizenship is of greater value than that. The purchase price is too low. Surely 10 years would be the appropriate qualifying connection. I am sorry that the Government did not see fit to require that period to establish the extraordinary privilege that will be passed on from one generation to another of children born abroad.
One of the results of the changes that we have made to the Bill's original character is that the status of the British citizen by descent is becoming isolated. He and he alone is the only one who cannot, as it were, upgrade his citizenship to the equivalent of British by birth. A Briton by descent is someone who was born abroad, perhaps in accidental and unintended circumstances. He will always be a Briton by descent, even if a few days after his birth he is brought to this country and lives here for the rest of his life. He will never be able to pass on automatically his citizenship to his children. He may be someone who in every other respect is totally connected with the country. The various provisions enable citizenship to be passed on by others, including so-called Britons otherwise than by descent, without let or hindrance.
What is the position of the children of Britons by descent? The Bill now includes a number of provisions that are in their favour. If such children having been born

abroad are brought to this country and with their parents live here for three years, they acquire the right to be, in effect, British by birth, with all the rights, duties and transmissibility that arise from that. If those children are born abroad and are registered abroad, they are Britons by descent. Although they may subsequently be brought to this country, they cannot be the equivalent of British by birth. We are now saying that the children of Britons by descent born abroad can themselves be made into Britons by descent if their parents live in this country for three years.
I have no doubt that there are strong arguments for making it easy to transmit citizenship. Everybody benefits except the Briton by descent whose transmissibility is in question. He never has first-grade citizenship. There is no provision for his citizenship to be upgraded to that of British citizen by birth or its equivalent. That is one of the Bill's defects.
I accept that one cannot look a gift horse in the mouth. The amendment has met the substantial criticism of British indigenous stock born abroad and the objections which were expressed when the Bill appeared in its original form.
The criterion of employment for the qualifying connection proved to be extremely difficult. I do not accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The qualifying period of residence in this country is better than the employment connection, which was hedged with so many technical details and definitions. No doubt the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) would have said that it would give a great deal of employment to lawyers in applying it. It will be easier to apply the qualifying connection of residence

Mr. Tilley: I would have said what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Stanbrook: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to confirm the accuracy of my statement.

On the whole, however, I believe that the changeover to a qualifying connection based on residence is one that should be welcomed on its merits. Although it is true that we should have given longer consideration to the matter in the House, and although I believe that three years is an inadequate period in which to establish that connection, I support the amendment.

Sir Ronald Bell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I regret not having stood up when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) sat down. I did not realise that he was sitting down because he had finished his speech, but the Minister did realise that, and the debate has therefore taken on an unusual form.
This is an important amendment which attracted a great deal of attention and which was subject to much debate in another place. It merits a little more attention than it has had in this short debate, which was occasioned by the disturbance that occurred.
I both agree and disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South. I agree with him about the absurdity of the "one-grandmother" rule, because it was a fantastic mistake to extend nationality to the female line. That colours our approach to the change which was made in another place. It is absurd because one must have rules if one is to have a significant nationality. However, if either parent can transmit nationality, the scope of nationality is


widened infinitely until it ceases to have any outline. It is similar to cheating at cards. However, if one gets rid of the absurdity of transmitting nationality both through the female line and the male line—which will lead to infinite dual nationality, and even quadruple and octuple nationality—one can look at the amendment from the practical point of view.
In practice I believe that the change will work in the right way. That point was made by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). Although its theory may be alarmingly wide, it will mainly work to the advantage of people who are technically British. That is what we want to bring about. Surely, the extension of jus sanguinis is what we should be trying to achieve. For a long time past the whole movement of nationality law has been towards the place of birth. In the time in which we live, the place of birth is so unimportant as to be sometimes irrelevant. People move about the world quickly and British people who work abroad more often take their wives with them. The place where the baby happens to be born is a matter of almost the utmost triviality. To attach enormous significance to it is anachronistic. It is difficult to find a statutory definition of ethnic Britishness without causing apoplexy on Opposition Benches.
We should try to confine the right of abode in this country to those who are belongers. I take the word "belongers" from the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary. He was moving the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill in 1968, which he said had the purpose of restoring the basic intention of the 1962 Act, which was to confine the right to live in this country to those who were belongers—those who had a long ancestral connection with this country. Those were splendid words. I have used them often and I use them again with happiness now—the British people are those with a long ancestral connection with this country.
Somehow or other we must make sure that those British people do not lose that citizenship—it is more than citizenship, it is the right to live here—simply because, for one or two generations, they have been working overseas. That is a nonsense now and has been so for a long time. One of my great grandparents was born in Australia—his parents happened to be there at the time—and another was born in Russia because, since I am Scottish, we built the railways of the whole world and the Russian railways were being built at that moment. Therefore, what matters is whether one is ethnically British. Somehow we must give a sensible definition of that.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, this Lords amendment goes a little wide in theory. In practical application, however, it will do nothing but good and will last us until we can have a new British Nationality Bill which will carry further the concepts of the jus sanguinis and exclude many more of those people whom the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central wants to come in. He knows well that he and I radically disagree on that subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 23, after "application" insert—
or his father and mother were legally separated on that date".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 39.

Mr. Raison: The amendment amends the conditions under which a child born overseas to a British citizen by descent, and not acquiring our citizenship at birth, would have an entitlement to registration if he came to this country with his family to live. Clause 3(6) requires that he must reside here with both parents for three years, but subsection (7) relaxes this requirement where one of the parents is dead or the couple are divorced. That is what "terminated" means in subsection (7). It does not cover legal separation.
It was suggested to us in another place that that was unduly restrictive since it would not cover, for example, those who were judicially separated but not divorced—divorce in some cases being impossible for reasons of conscience or religion. The amendment is designed to meet that criticism by extending subsection (7) to cover the situation where a child comes to this country with one parent who is legally separated from the other.
The wording of amendment No. 39 is similar, except that it refers to the dependent territories. I hope that the House will agree with the amendment.

Mr. Tilley: We welcome the amendment, but it does not go as far as we should like. The addition of judicial separation to the categories of parental separation, which means that the parent with custody has the decision, does not go as far as we should like. We believe that cases where one person has disappeared or cannot be traced should be catered for. As the Bill stands, even as amended, if a deserting parent cannot be traced, the child will stay unregistered. Even if that deserting parent were traced, he—or she—would still have a veto over the registration of the child, although he had avoided his other responsibilities to that child.
Our amendment to the amendment has not been called because the draftsman found that "separated" meant the same as "legally separated". Therefore, while in common sense terms what we were saying made sense, in parliamentary draftsmanship terms it did not. However, it conveyed the spirit of what we were trying to achieve. Will the Minister say whether there is any way in which our point can be met by wider use of discretion if it cannot be met by further amending the Bill?

Miss Jo Richardson: I am glad that as a result of the debate in another place the Government have thought again on this point and sought, through the amendment, to widen the subsection beyond the plain fact of death or divorce. That is to be welcomed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) said, however, the clause is still restrictive in that it refers only to legal separation.
Many married people are living apart. They consider themselves, as it were, permanently separated, although, for a number of reasons, they are not divorced and have not sought a legal separation. They are certainly not living with their spouses. We sought to remove the word "legally" so that the circumstances of those people and their offspring could be taken into account. As the clause


stands, even with the amendment, there would still be an obstacle in the way of such people, an obstacle which might disadvantage some children.
There was considerable debate in another place about this matter and about the definition of the word "terminated", which the amendment seeks to clarify and define. Much was said—the Government clearly accepted the spirit of it—about the circumstances which lead people to live apart without necessarily obtaining a divorce. The Minister has already referred to those who, for religious or other reasons, do not wish to divorce.
It is difficult to discover, although I have attempted to do so, the number of people in this country who are separated, but not legally separated in terms of an order by a magistrates' court. It is probably still guesswork, but I understand that in 1979 about 200,000 wives were separated without judicial separation. I have no means of knowing whether that was an intelligent guess, but, accepting that as the approximate figure, it suggests that the clause as amended, requiring people to produce evidence of separation, may disadvantage some people.
We can all cite people in our constituencies—let alone our personal acquaintances—who, in the course of explaining their problems, tell us that they are separated from their husbands or wives but that there is no legal separation. The matter arises frequently in connection with social security, which is why people's private lives are so often revealed. Those in the unfortunate position of having been deserted by their spouses may have children, born outside the United Kingdom, who wish to register but will be unable to do so.
What are they to do if the parents are not legally separated? The Government spokesman in another place gave his answer as follows:
in the case of a separation which is not a judicial separation it is right that both the mother and the father should give consent to the application for registration. If they cannot do so under Clause 3(6), perhaps because one parent is living in the United Kingdom with the child, while the other parent is living abroad, then indeed they can apply for registration under Clause 3(1)."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 1981; Vol. 424, c. 70.]
Clause 3(1) embodies the Secretary of State's discretion.
That does not take account, however, of the case in which one parent has deserted and cannot be found, leaving the other parent, as it were, to pick up the pieces. That parent, and more particularly any children from the marriage, will be in a difficult position. Will the remaining parent, who is not legally separated, be able to ask for the Secretary of State's discretion? Will the Home Office advise people in that position, as one of our colleagues in another place asked at that time, by rather more than the standard letter that they will have the opportunity to ask for the Secretary of State's discretion instead of being left high and dry?
The number is probably small, but if we do not sort this out—if only by getting some words on the record from the Minister—some children will be deprived of the opportunity for registration, because their parents, for whatever reason, have not obtained a judicial separation. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position, as there seems to be a yawning hole in the provisions in this regard.

Mr. Stanbrook: Clearly, the word "legally" qualifying the word "separation" is desirable. We need certainty and some degree of formality in these matters to know how to obtain the necessary evidence in seeking to effect registration under the Bill. 

There is, however, much to be said for the argument advanced by the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) on the ground of the uncertain position of some parents in relation to their spouses. Does "legal separation" mean only judicial separation in the shape of an order by the divorce court? Does it include a separation order made by a magistrates' court, which is legally binding and has full effect for social security purposes and which may be obtained in the absence of the deserting spouse? Does it cover a separation under a formal, fully documented voluntary separation agreement which provides for maintenance?
A range of circumstances might be covered. One appreciates that there must be certainty and some means of producing evidence. Nevertheless, as the hon. Lady pointed out, there will clearly be cases and circumstances in which there will be doubt. I, too, therefore, would appreciate some guidance from the Minister as to the precise meaning of the term "legal separation".

Mr. Raison: I appreciate that the amendment does not go quite as far as the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) would wish, but I think that it has been generally welcomed by the House.
Clearly, the problem in having no legal definition of "separation" and no means of determining when there is legal separation is that there could be circumstances in which there is considerable confusion as to who is responsible for a child. Presumably, the point is that legal separation and divorce include some decision as to where custody of the child shall lie. To include no requirement for legal separation could clearly cause many problems.
A number of hon. Members, however, have asked whether there is any other way of dealing with the hard luck cases. As the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will know from her long hours of service in the Standing Committee, there is always the invaluable provision of clause 3(1)—the Secretary of State's power to register minors. This is the type of circumstance in which it is reasonable to suppose that that power will be exercised.
I was asked whether we could put out some kind of information as to when this power would be used. Information which has the flavour of converting what is, after all, still a discretion into some kind of quasi-entitlement might produce problems. On the other hand, I accept the point that the hon. Lady was notable in pressing in Committee, that when the Bill becomes an Act as much information as possible should be made available to those whom it may concern. I accept that entirely. I hope that we shall be able to make people aware that the discretionary provision exists.
I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 6

RIGHT TO REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF RESIDENCE IN U.K. OR RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 7, line 27, after "made" insert
(subject to subsections (5A) and (5B))".

6 pm

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 18.
The amendment to Lords amendment No. 18 standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
The four Government amendments to Lords amendment No. 18.
Lords amendment No. 19.
The Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 19.
The Government consequential amendment to the Bill.
Lords amendment No. 43.
The amendment to Lords amendment No. 43 standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
The two Government amendments to Lords amendment No. 43.

Mr. Raison: We now come to a debate of some complexity which I for one have never experienced before. I hope that other hon. Members know exactly how to handle this mixture of consequential amendments which agree, disagree and so on. It is remarkably complicated, but I shall do my best to keep on the right track.
The main concern of these amendments is with the provisions of clause 6(1)(a). The clause, as it left the House, conferred an entitlement to British citizenship for five years after commencement on citizens of independent Commonwealth countries or citizens of the Republic of Ireland settled in this country since before 1 January 1973.
The entitlement arose out of provisions in schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 1971, which applied to persons who had the right to register under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948. Under the Bill, those concerned had to be eligible for the entitlement both at commencement and at the time they applied for it and, therefore, had to be of full age at both those dates. Only those of full age eligible at commencement were able to benefit from the entitlement to citizenship in this provision as it left the House. Minors who were otherwise eligible were unable to benefit, even if they attained their majority during the five-year period for which the entitlement in clause 6(1)(a) is to remain available. Had such minors not been registered as citizens during their minority under the Secretary of State's discretionary powers, they would have had to apply for British citizenship by naturalisation.
We originally took the view that no great hardship would arise if those children were excluded from the entitlement to citizenship in clause 6(1)(a). They did not have an entitlement at commencement, and there seemed to us to be no reason why, if their parents so wished, they could not be registered as minors under the Home Secretary's discretionary powers.
A minor's prospects of acquiring citizenship are, after all, essentially bound up with those of his or her parents. If the parents applied for citizenship, it would be open to them to seek registration of their minor children as citizens. Had the parents not taken such steps, it could be assumed that they had decided that the matter should be left for the child to take further, if he wished, when he grew up.
However, both in another place and elsewhere it was put to us that there might be minors whose parents had not 

registered them perhaps through ignorance of the need to do so. Thus, through no fault of their own, they would find, when they were of age, that they could acquire British citizenship only by naturalisation. It was suggested to us that this might cause resentment among the young Commonwealth citizens concerned. We considered these arguments and concluded that, in all the circumstances, it would be right to accept amendments which opened the way to British citizenship as an entitlement for this group of minors. That is what these amendments are principally designed to do.
The first is a paving amendment which adds a forward reference to the new provisos to clause 6(1) added by Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19. I do not think that I need detain the House over that.
The substantive amendments with which we are concerned are Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 19. Lords amendment No. 14 removes from clause 6(1)(a) the requirement that an applicant has to hold the entitlement both at commencement and at the time of application. Under this amendment, he would simply have to show that he was entitled at the time of application. Thus, children who were not qualified for this entitlement at commencement, because they were still minors, would be able to acquire an entitlement after commencement when they had reached their majority.
Lords amendment No. 19 is concerned with ensuring that those minors who acquire an entitlement to citizenship under clause 6(1)(a), when they become of full age after commencement, will have an adequate period of time in which to exercise that entitlement. As hon. Members will be aware, adults who have an entitlement at commencement under this provision are to have five years after commencement in which to exercise their entitlement. Lords amendment No. 19 makes similar provision for minors by providing that they shall have five years in which to apply after they attain their majority. We have brought forward a consequential amendment to carry through this arrangement to the scheme for British dependent territories citizenship.
The other main change in another place is contained in Lords amendment No. 18. That confers a discretion on the Secretary of State, in the special circumstances of any particular case, to accept late applications made under clause 6(1) for up to eight years after commencement. This discretionary power extends both to applications made under clause 6(1)(a) and (b). Clause 6(1)(b) confers an entitlement to British citizenship on Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode at commencement. This discretion is intended to meet the particular cases of hardship which might arise where a person was not able—perhaps because of severe illness or some other good reason—to submit an application under either clause 6(1)(a) or (b) within the normal five-year period.
It has been necessary to bring forward amendments to Lords amendment No. 18. The discretion in that provision does not adequately reflect the arrangements now proposed for minors who come of age after commencement. The Secretary of State has power to accept late applications from them only in circumstances which would exclude some of those concerned. It is clearly desirable that those in this group should enjoy the same facilities. Accordingly, we have brought forward amendments that give the Secretary of State discretion to accept late applications from those in this group for up to eight years after they come of age. 


Lords amendment No. 43 gives the Secretary of State discretion to accept late applications from applicants for British dependent territories citizenship under clause 18. In special circumstances, he will be able to accept applications made up to eight years after commencement. This will be a useful measure to relieve hardship in particular cases.
However, Lords amendment No. 43 does not reflect the changes to clause 6 which were agreed in another place and have been carried through to clause 18. These mean that people otherwise eligible for British dependent territories citizenship under clause 18, but who are minors at commencement, will be eligible to secure citizenship in this way once they are of full age. They will have five years after that time in which to exercise that entitlement. But as it stands Lords amendment No. 43 does not give the Secretary of State discretion to accept late applications, and this is now remedied.
I appreciate that this is an involved matter, but I hope that the House feels that the amendments are fair and just and can be supported.

Mr. Tilley: Let me try to explain the procedural position as we see it. The Government amended the Bill in the other place. We tabled amendments to that Government amendment but then discovered that the Government were in this House seeking to amend their own amendment made in another place. Therefore, we are now seeking to amend the Government's amendment to the Government amendment in another place. Having worked all that out, we shall seek to divide the House on the amendment to Lords amendment No. 18 standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
The effect of the various amendments already carried in another place is to give the Secretary of State the discretion to extend from five years to eight years the grace period for Commonwealth citizens taking up their right to registration which will otherwise be extinguished by the Bill. It also covers those who are not 18 at the date of commencement but who will become 18 after that date. In enables them to take up their right, as adult Commonwealth citizens, to register as British citizens.

I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Pitt, who not only discovered the gap in the Bill—which we did not spot despite our 170 hours of close examination—but persuaded the Government to close it. Now that the problems of minors is settled, our concern is with the adults who came from the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent when they were colonies in response to Britain's labour requirements. They were people in their twenties and thirties who came here in the 1950s and 1960s on a United Kingdom and Colonies passport. They saw that as a British passport, as we all will until the Bill is enacted. They have worked here for half their lives, paid taxes and obeyed the laws. In many cases they had to suffer racial discrimination and disadvantage. They began their lives here and many are still in the worst housing and have the worst jobs in inner city areas such as the part of Lambeth that I represent.
As the Minister pointed out, those people have had the right to register as British citizens for many years. That process is easier, cheaper and quicker than naturalisation. That was part of the special treatment that, until this

legislation, was accorded Commonwealth citizens who already had links with this country but wanted to take up full British citizenship.
The man on the Clapham omnibus has already been mentioned. He is likely, depending upon the stop he gets on at, to be a constituent of mine. He may be on his way to the Clapham citizens advice bureau, which has written to me about this problem. The letter says:
In Clapham the majority of our West Indian and Asian clients, who have been resident and settled here for some time, would have had an automatic right to British Citizenship. When the Bill becomes law, unless they register within a specific time, they will lose this right. Instead they have to apply for the discretionary naturalisation, and be subject to investigation, with good character and language tests … The Nationality Bill is therefore already causing great anxiety and insecurity amongst our Commonwealth clients, and this can only increase when the Bill is implemented.
That letter was sent to me a few days ago by Mary Benton, the organiser of the Clapham citizens advice bureau. It reflects an anxiety that has been monitored and put forward to right hon. and hon. Members by the citizens advice bureau service nationally and by many other advice agencies to which Commonwealth citizens resident in this country turn for help.
We ask that the grace period be extended even further. The discretion that the Minister would have under the Government's amendment to extend the grace period from five to eight years should be increased infinitely so that it will extend to the lifetimes of the people who now have the right. We do not suggest that any new people should have the right. We suggest that those who have the right to register as British citizens should hold that right for their natural lifetimes and should be able to ask the Minister to exercise his discretion and allow them to take up citizenship within their lifetime.
The question we have to answer is why they have not already taken up their entitlement and/or why we may expect that a significant number will not take it up within the grace period of five years, which has already been extended from the two years that was on the face of the Bill when this House first considered it.
6.15 pm
There are several reasons why people have not taken up that entitlement but should be allowed to take it up later. First, many Commonwealth citizens feel resentment when they learn that they are not British citizens, as they thought, and that they have to go through the process of registration. That resentment has to be overcome and it takes time for them to realise their position. Secondly, registration costs £50 and that is a great deal of money for many of those people to find. Therefore, they wait until they can spare £50, which may take a matter of years.
The most important reason—and the one that is the responsibility of this Government and previous Governments—is that many of those people are not aware that they are not British citizens. They lost their United Kingdom and Colonies nationality on the day that the colony from which they came to work in Britain became independent. Jamaica became independent in 1963 and the other West Indian islands became independent on dates ranging from then until about two years ago, when St. Vincent and St. Lucia became independent.
They were not told that they were no longer United Kingdom and Colonies citizens. Because of the life they lead and their disposable income, very few of them travel great distances, so they do not need a passport for a long


time. It is only long after they have lost their United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship, because of the independence of their home colony, that they realise that they have to apply for registration. It is reasonable to say that a substantial number of people may wish to exercise their right to register as British citizens after the maximum grace period allowed not only by the Bill after it left this House but also by this amendment.
We are talking about what is likely to happen in the 1990s, because commencement plus eight years takes us to the end of the decade. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us when commencement will be. It seems hardly likely that it will be 1 January 1982, which was one of the dates first mooted. It will help us on this issue and many others if he can tell us when commencement for the Act will be. We are talking about the 1990s and about a handful of Indian, Bangladeshi and West Indian people who will be old-age pensioners—the first generation of black British pensioners.
If one of them realises that he is not a British citizen and decides that he wants to end his days as a citizen of the country of which he always thought he was a citizen—certainly the country he has always thought of as the mother country—and applies to be registered, he will be turned away unless the amendment is passed. He will be told to apply for naturalisation, which probably by that time will cost much more than the £150 it now costs. He will have to go through a series of tests that will present varying forms of difficulty to him.
The two Houses have gone a long way towards meeting that argument during their consideration of the Bill. I would ask the House to register by vote the need to grant justice to that group of old, black and, in the main, poor people who long ago threw in their lot with Britain.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the hon. Member satisfied that his purpose is sufficiently achieved if he leaves in the words
in the special circumstances of any particular case"?
I have listened carefully to the instances that the hon. Member appears to have in mind. It is difficult to see how they could be covered by the special circumstances of a particular case. Indeed, the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that this was something that might frequently be expected in the case of that class of persons. Is he satisfied that his amendment, as it leaves those words unaffected, will have the result for which he hopes?

Mr. Tilley: The discretion could be exercised in many cases. I was talking in generalities. In about 10 years each individual case will be a special circumstance.
In the meantime, I look forward to two things happening. First, by the 1990s the legislation may have been repealed and replaced by something better. I say that in full so as not to add to the right hon. Gentleman's scepticism of last night. Secondly, we shall have a Labour Home Secretary who will regard the circumstances that I have instanced as special. We shall have to wait and see.
However, it is worth while having an investment for the reasonable treatment of people in the 1990s when the problems would arise.

Mr. Dan Jones: The Government are responsible for the ambiguities in my hon. Friend's mind.

Could they not set up an agency in the meantime—not at great cost—to deal with the objections mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?

Mr. Tilley: I find the question difficult to answer, as the ambiguities are in the Bill and not in my mind.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Under pressure the Government increased from two to five years the period in which people may apply for registration. They resisted my amendment in Committee proposing eight years. The Bill has come back from the House of Lords with an amendment for at least a discretion within eight years. The Government have lacked charity throughout the passage of the Bill. They have now almost arrived at a position that they fought vigorously against.
I do not know whether the official Opposition amendment has technical defects but I applaud its spirit. The number who will be affected is small. As the Government have moved from two to five and in certain instances eight years, they should complete the job. This is an example of how the Government have got a bad name for their action over the Bill. They have retreated in stages when they should have been generous to begin with.

Mr. Raison: The interpretation by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) of our approach to the Bill is in itself uncharitable. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend and I said that we were prepared to listen to the debate. If a good case was made out for change, we were prepared to make it. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be a little irked that we did not make the change in response to his pleading, but I am afraid that is how life works. Sometimes an argument has to be put two or three times before being accepted. The hon. and learned Gentleman should welcome the fact that we are prepared to move on such issues, whether the change is proposed in Committee or on the Floor in another place.
The amendments that I commend to the House meet the situation. It is not necessary or desirable to allow late applications to be submitted indefinitely, as the official Opposition amendment proposes. Such a provision would be out of line with the approach that we adopt elsewhere in the Bill—for instance in clause 6(6), which gives discretion to allow late applications under clause 6(2) up to eight years after commencement.
The provision would also be out of line with our general approach to entitlement, such as that in clause 6, which arises from previous nationality legislation. We are prepared to preserve these arrangements for a limited period, because we are anxious that the transition to a new scheme of citizenship should be made without dislocation or hardship, but we do not believe that it would be right to extend arrangements relating to these entitlements indefinitely, even on a discretionary basis. After all, one object of the exercise is to clarify—to standardize—to achieve a recognisable law. Constantly to extend the present situation is bound to blur the impact.
I appreciate that dilemma can arise where Commonwealth citizens are reluctant to exercise their entitlements because it would mean losing citizenship of their country of birth; but, frankly, that arises from the nationality laws of the countries concerned. It is not of our making and, anyway, it is not a matter that an indefinite extension of the discretion to accept late applications will do anything to solve. 


For those reasons I am afraid that I must ask the House to reject the official Opposition amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 7, line 33, leave out "both at commencement and".

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 42.

Mr. Raison: The amendment means that it is no longer necessary for applicants for British citizenship under this provision to show that both at commencement and at the time of the application, they would, but for the Bill, have been entitled to citizenship under paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 1971. They would simply have to show that at the time of their application they were so entitled. In other words, people who were not qualified for this entitlement at commencement, but become so afterwards, are able to obtain citizenship in this way. That is essentially the subject matter of our previous debate.
Amendment No. 42 is the equivalent for British dependent territories citizenship of the Lords amendment agreed earlier to clause 6. It is one of several amendments designed to amend clause 16 to benefit those citizens of Commonwealth countries and citizens of the Republic of Ireland settled in a dependent territory before 1 January 1973 who, but for their being minors, would at commencement have had an entitlement to citizenship under clause 18.
The amendment means that it is no longer necessary for applicants for British dependent territories citizenship under this provision to show that both at commencement and at the time of application they would, but for the Bill, have been entitled to citizenship under paragraphs 2 to 5 of schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 1971. They would simply have to show that at the time of their application they were so entitled. Thus, children who were not qualified for the entitlement at commencement, because they were still minors, will be able to acquire an entitlement after commencement when they reach their majority.
Essentially those are issues that we have already discussed, and I commend the amendment to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 8, line 36, at end insert—
(5A) If in the special circumstances of any particular case the Secretary of State thinks fit, he may treat subsection (1) as if the reference to five years after commencement were a reference to eight years after commencement, but shall not do so unless the person to whom the application relates would have been entitled to be registered under that subsection on an application made immediately before the end of the five years after commencement.
Read a Second time.
Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 3, leave out from 'may' to 'but' in line 5 and insert:
disregard the references in subsections (1) and (5B) to five years after commencement and five years after the date on which he attains full age respectively'.—[Mr. Tilley.]
Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 250.

AYES


Abse, Leo
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Adams, Allen
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Alton, David
Home Robertson, John


Anderson, Donald
Homewood, William


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hoyle, Douglas


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Huckfield, Les


Ashton, Joe
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E. 


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)



Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beith, A. J. 
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Janner, Hon Greville


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
John, Brynmor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckny S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Russell


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Campbell, lan
Kinnock, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lambie, David


Canavan, Dennis
Lamborn, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Leadbitter, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Leighton, Ronald


Cartwright, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cohen, Stanley
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. 
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cook, Robin F. 

McCartney, Hugh


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Crowther, Stan
McElhone, Frank


Cryer, Bob
McGuire, Michael (Ince)



Cunliffe, Lawrence
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McMahon, Andrew


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McTaggart, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Magee, Bryan


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, lan


Douglas, Dick
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morton, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Eadie, Alex
Newens, Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
O'Halloran, Michael



Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
O'Neill, Martin


English, Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Palmer, Arthur


Ewing, Harry
Park, George


Faulds, Andrew
Parker, John


Field, Frank
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Pavitt, Laurie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Pendry, Tom


Ford, Ben
Penhaligon, David


Forrester, John
Pitt, William Henry


Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Prescott, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Radice, Giles


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Ted
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Robertson, George


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Ryman, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sandelson, Neville


Haynes, Frank
Sever, John




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Alexander, Richard
Critchley, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Crouch, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Banks, Robert
Durant, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dykes, Hugh


Bell, Sir Ronald
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendell, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Elliott, Sir William


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Emery, Peter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eyre, Reginald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fell, Anthony


Blackburn, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brotherton, Michael
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhew, Victor


Budgen, Nick
Goodlad, Alastair



Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gow, Ian


Butcher, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gray, Hamish


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Grist, Ian


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Grylls, Michael


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hamilton, Hon A.

  
Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)



Churchill, W. S.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hannam, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hawkins, Paul


Cockeram, Eric
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Cope, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Corrie, John
Heddle, John


Costain, Sir Albert
Henderson, Barry



Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Hill, James
Pollock, Alexander


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hooson, Tom
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hordern, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)
Raison, Timothy



Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rossi, Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lang, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Latham, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard


Loveridge, John
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stainton, Keith


Marlow, Antony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Steen, Anthony


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Donald


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Roger

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Molyneaux, James
Trippier, David


Monro, Sir Hector
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moore, John
Waddington, David


Morgan, Geraint
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Mudd, David
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Murphy, Christopher
Walters, Dennis


Myles, David
Warren, Kenneth



Needham, Richard
Watson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Neubert, Michael
Wheeler, John


Newton, Tony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Whitney, Raymond


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Winterton, Nicholas


Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Christopher (Bath)



Patten, John (Oxford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Percival, Sir Ian
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Sheerman, Barry
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R. 
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Short, Mrs Renée
Watkins, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Weetch, Ken


Silverman, Julius
Welsh, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
White, Frank R. 


Soley, Clive
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Steel, Rt Hon David
Whitlock, William


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W lsles)
Wigley, Dafydd


Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Straw, Jack
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Tilley, John
Mr. Allen McKay.


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Question accordingly negatived.

Government amendments to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Consequential Government amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 9

RIGHT TO REGISTRATION REPLACING RIGHT TO RESUME CITIZENSHIP OF UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 11, line 11, at end insert—
(1A) On an application for his registration as a British citizen made by a person of full capacity who had before commencement ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause that person to be registered as a British citizen if that person—

 has an appropriate qualifying connection with the United Kingdom; or
 if a woman, has been married to a person who has, or would if living have, such a connection."

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 24, 47 and 48.

Mr. Raison: Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 add to clause 9 a discretionary provision enabling a person who renounced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies for whatever reason to resume British citizenship at discretion, provided that he has an appropriate qualifying connection with the United Kingdom.
As drafted, clause 9—like the current provision in section 1(1) of the British Nationality Act 1964 which it replaces—confers an entitlement to British citizenship only on those with the relevant qualifying connections with the United Kingdom who renounced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies in order to acquire another Commonwealth citizenship. However, it was put to us both in this House and in another place that there could be people who renounced for other reasons than that they had to acquire another Commonwealth citizenship and who might wish to resume British citizenship. The Government accept that such cases deserve sympathetic consideration. We have therefore added to clause 9 the discretionary power to deal with cases of people who have an appropriate qualifying connection but do not meet the criteria for the entitlement.
I should point out that the permanent provisions for resumption by people who renounced British citizenship—to be found in clause 12—already contain, at subsection (3), a discretionary power of this kind. All we are really doing therefore is bringing the two provisions into line.
We are also asking the House to agree with the Lords amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which are the equivalent for the British dependent territories of those to which I have already spoken.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

New Clause A

RIGHT TO REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF UNITED KINGDOM NATIONALITY FOR EUROPEAN COMMUNITY PURPOSES

Lords amendment: No. 25, after clause 9, insert new clause A,
A. A person who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virture of the operation of any of the pre-Accession Treaties listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972 shall be entitled, notwithstanding the provisions of Part II of this Act, on application, to be registerd as a British citizen.

Read a Second time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the Government new clause in lieu—Acquisition by registration: nationals for purposes of the Community Treaties—Lords amendment No. 29 and Government motion to disagree, together with the Government amendment in lieu.

Mr. Whitelaw: The amendments are concerned with access to British citizenship by the people of Gibraltar. As the House knows, Gibraltar is the only British dependent territory whose people are treated as our nationals for the purpose of the Community treaties, and it was agreed in another place that, by virtue of this status, people from Gibraltar should be entitled to British citizenship on application.
An amendment on those lines was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) on Report on 2 June. I explained then that I could not advise the House to give Gibraltar a special position under the Bill, because of the impact on other dependent territories. Whilst we fully understood the views put forward on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, specific assurances had been given to them about arrangements for their entry to the United Kingdom. The House decided by a majority of 25 that special access to British citizenship should not be given to the people of Gibraltar.
It was, however, clear that there was a large body of opinion in this House and elsewhere that continued to hold the view that Gibraltar's position merited special treatment in the Bill. This was emphasised again when an amendment similar to that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East was moved in another place on 22 July. Again, very strong pleas were made that the situation of Gibraltar, the nature of its ties with the United Kingdom and its position within the European Community justified a different approach to British citizenship for its people from that available to other citizens of the British dependent territories. The opposing arguments were formidably displayed, but, by a majority of 38, the amendment was agreed. Subsequently on Third Reading the wording of the amendment was somewhat modified, but its intention remains the same—to confer on the people of Gibraltar, as nationals for the purposes of the Community treaties, an unqualified entitlement to British citizenship.
The Government carefully considered what response they should make when the amendment passed in another


place came to be considered by this House. There are undoubtedly powerful arguments against the amendment. But we have to reckon with the fact that, though these arguments were fully set out in another place, they did not win the day there. Moreover, though this House voted against giving people from Gibraltar special access to British citizenship, it did so only by a relatively slender margin, though here too all the arguments against such a provision were fully exposed.
It is therefore clear that, after hearing all the arguments, a considerable body of opinion in this House and another place remains convinced that special access to British citizenship for the people of Gibraltar is amply justified. The Government have therefore concluded that they should not ask the House to disagree with the Lords over this principle of their amendment. Accordingly, we do not seek to oppose the principle that lies behind the amendment, but I am afraid that we must oppose the amendment as drafted since it fails in our view to achieve its objectives satisfactorily.
Let me outline briefly the deficiencies of the Lords amendment. It provides that an unqualified entitlement to British citizenship shall be held by a person who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of the operation of any of the pre-accession treaties listed in part I of schedule 1 of the European Communities Act 1972.
In fact, no one is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of any of those treaties. It is, I believe, intended that the entitlement should be held by all those who are United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of those treaties. But it is not just people from Gibraltar who are United Kingdom nationals for that purpose. People connected in various ways with this country are nationals for that purpose. In most cases, such people will automatically become British citizens on commencement and consequently do not need the benefit of the entitlement in this amendment. The amendment thus goes far too wide.
We propose that the Lords amendment should be replaced by a simpler provision that will benefit solely those whom it is intended to help and whom the movers of the amendments both in this House and in the Lords clearly intended to help. The new provision confers an unqualified entitlement on those British dependent territories' citizens who are United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of the Community treaties. British dependent territories' citizens who derive that status from their links with Gibraltar are the only category of such citizens who fall to be United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of the Community treaties and, therefore, they alone will be able to benefit from this provision.
Lords amendment No. 29 would mean that those registered under the Gibraltar amendment, if this House sees fit to accept it, would be British citizens by descent. They would, therefore, be unable—unless they were in Crown service or other service relevant for the purposes of clause 2—to transmit their British citizenship automatically to a further generation born overseas.
The principle that lies behind this is surely right. After all, those who are registered under the Gibraltar amendment will in most, if not all, cases be born outside the United Kingdom. They will also normally be resident abroad, since the entitlement does not depend on a period

of residence in this country, and need have no intention of coming to this country at any time during their lives. Their links with the United Kingdom are therefore comparable with those of other British citizens born abroad, and it seems only logical that they, like these other British citizens, should be British citizens by descent and should be able to transmit their citizenship—and the right of abode in the United Kingdom—to their children born abroad only in specified circumstances. To do otherwise would be incompatible with the Government's general approach to the transmission of citizenship and could only cause resentment amongst other British citizens born and resident abroad who have close links with this country.
However, Lords amendment No. 29 cannot stand as it is, since it is intended that the Gibraltar provision, as amended by this House, should appear after clause 4 instead of clause 9, as at present. This change will be made by the Public Bill Office. This has affected Lords amendment No. 29 in two ways. First, its place in clause 13 had to be changed, since the subsections of this clause follow the sequence of the clauses to which they relate. Secondly, the reference to the Gibraltar amendment in Lords amendment No. 29 has to be altered so that it refers to that provision if, as I ask, it is amended by this House.
We have decided to accept the principle of the amendment proposed and carried substantially in another place, and we have made the necessary technical adjustments to make sure that the amendment does exactly what the movers of it and others who voted for it in the House of Lords wished. That is the position, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. David Alton: I welcome the words of the Home Secretary and the fact that the new clause will be accepted in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 29. However, it is arguable that in accepting these changes the Government further expose the Bill for the discriminatory legislation that it is.
I am all in favour of Gibraltarians being able to register as full British citizens, but the House should consider the illogicality of refusing such status to other dependent territories, too. With or without the Bill there are safeguards in the EEC treaties, but this new clause elevates those safeguards to a status that Liberals would argue should apply to all citizens of British dependent colonies.
For many Falkland Islanders and Hong Kong residents it is perceived as an attack on their status and an attempt to downgrade them to second-class citizens. But they are now third-class citizens or, more crudely, as suggested by commentators in Hong Kong and elsewhere, sheep, goats and more goats. In Hong Kong, this legislation is viewed as a covert measure to evade the responsibility that should accompany territorial and colonial acquisition. This new clause proves that their view is correct.
Some people may regard the new clause as a step in the right direction, but it is simply a device to placate a powerful white lobby with which the Government have sympathy. The fact that the new clause is to be included shows how ready yet again the Government are to concede ground to groups with emotional appeal and political clout. That should be contrasted with their willingness to listen to the fears and anguish of our black and ethnic minority groups and to citizens in colonies that have less patriotic appeal than the Rock of Gibraltar. It is proof again, if proof were needed, that the Bill is mean-minded, nasty, divisive and racist.

Sir Bernard Braine: Like most hon. Members, I was shocked by the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). Hong Kong is not in Europe, as is Gibraltar; nor is it part of the EEC. There is no possible argument that could be adduced along the lines the hon. Member advanced.
My comments will be brief because I know that some hon. Members who have played a notable role in bringing about this welcome change of heart by the Government wish to speak. I am glad that the Government are not seeking to reject the spirit of the Lords amendment and that the people of Gibraltar will now be able to enjoy the right to apply individually to be registered as British citizens. That is a wise decision and I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on it. I am not surprised. I felt all along that he would see the justice of our argument. It is wise because Gibraltar was and is a unique case, especially since our entry into the EEC. How could one defend a situation where Gibraltarians were part of the EEC but were denied representation in the European Parliament?
It is wise, above all, because the decision takes into account the overwhelming wish of the people of Gibraltar to be regarded as British, if not in blood, certainly in spirit, culture and allegiance for a long time past. Certainly the overwhelming majority of people on the rock are not Spaniards. The origins of the people who settled there under the protection of the British Crown were anything but Spanish. They were Italian, Portuguese, Maltese, Moorish, Jewish and British. In short, the Government's decision is a recognition of the right of a people to proclaim their identity and, if they are denied sovereign independence, as the people of Gibraltar are under the treaty of Utrecht, to say where they want to belong.
However, I have one reservation: I am astonished that the Government have done nothing to meet the similar wishes of the Falkland Islanders, whose origins are wholly British and whose present insecurity is due entirely to the failures of successive Administrations to create the conditions that would ensure for them a viable economic future. It is, for example, a very sad commentary on the way in which British interests have been safeguarded in the Falklands that external communications, which are vital to the islanders, are now almost entirely dependent upon the Argentine.
7 pm
My correspondents in the Falkland Islands—I have letters from people there more or less weekly—tell me repeatedly that, despite all that has happened, they are determined to remain British. They reject the preposterous notion of lease-back, do not want to be part of the Argentine, and are now and wish to remain British.
I should like to quote from the last letter that I have received. It is from a lady in the Falkland Islands. She writes:
We are told that if we refuse to co-operate with the Argentines we must take the consequences. Ridley said it on the stage at a public meeting, others in authority have said it since. No one says exactly what those consequences will be.
It is shameful that a people of wholly British stock—and I do not apologise for using that term—should have been put in this position of uncertainty. If the Argentine were a democracy, such as Australia or New Zealand, this situation would never have arisen, but it is not. It is a military dictatorship in which thousands of people in recent years have been arrested, have been

imprisoned without trial. Many have been tortured. Several thousand of them—as the Liberal Party should know, if it is at all interested in human rights—have disappeared altogether.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Falkland Islands are not directly included in the amendment. The hon. Gentleman is therefore out of order.

Sir Bernard Braine: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right, but I have travelled down this road very largely because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Edge Hill. You did not call him to order, and he was calling in aid not just a remote group of islands in the South Atlantic but a vast range of territories, stretching from east to west and from north to south. I shall not pursue the matter save to say that in the Bill the Government have lost a great opportunity in not listening to this cry from the heart from our own people in the South Atlantic and in not giving them the same rights as we are now giving to the Gibraltarians.

The Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians have one other thing in common. They have played a notable part, particularly in this century, in the maritime defence of the people of these islands. They have made sacrifices for us. Where is the objection to giving the Falkland Islanders the right to British citizenship? There is none, save from those who have forgotten our history and come perilously near to forgetting our national honour.

Sir Paul Bryan: I sincerely congratulate Gibraltar on securing the amendment, but I must point out the effects of the amendment on other dependent territories. The House will not be surprised to hear that I have in mind Hong Kong, although the words I use will be a good deal more temperate than those we have heard from the Liberal Benches.
During the passage of the Bill through both Houses there have been frequent assurances of non-discrimination between the different dependent territories. For instance, the Home Secretary stated:
I recognise the deeply held feelings in some of the territories concerned that the Bill should have given them more. It would, however, have been difficult to devise a scheme for separate citizenships for all the dependencies"—
and here I emphasise the Home Secretary's words—
and invidious to single some out from all the others. For that same reason, it would have been discriminatory to make some but not others British citizens."—[Official Report, 4 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 1152.]
Similar sentiments have been expressed by other members of the Government when speaking on the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill before us now includes a specific discrimination in favour of Gibraltar.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also gave a special undertaking on 28 January in respect of the Falkland Islands, but I shall not go further in that direction for fear of being out of order. But here again we have an instance of specific assurances being given to one territory under one sort of pressure but not to others that may well feel that the pressure on them is just as great.
I assure the House that there is no ill will for Gibraltar in Hong Kong, or any wish to remove from Gibraltarians what they have been given in the amendment. But after repeated assurances that Her Majesty's Government would oppose the amendment, the fact that it is now accepted, together with the principle of discrimination that it embodies, has naturally caused profound disillusionment in Hong Kong.


I fully realise that this disillusionment is probably based on a misunderstanding of the very real sense of commitment to Hong Kong that the Government feel and have frequently expressed. Nevertheless, the acceptance of the Gibraltar amendment has created a new situation in which some further reassurance to other dependent territories is necesary. Their concern is with the extent of the Government's responsibility to them.
The extent of that responsibility was defined by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, in this way:
I confirm that citizens of the British dependent territories will remain United Kingdom nationals in the sense that the United Kingdom can afford consular protection and represent their interests internationally—both of which, of course, we intend to continue to do."—[Official Report, 4 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 1188-9.]

In the new situation it would be a great help if the Home Secretary would be explicit on a point which has hitherto been assumed but not stated. I ask him to confirm again that British dependent territory citizens hold and enjoy this status, together with the defined international responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for them, for life, regardless of whether their territory remains on the schedule and that the rights of this citizenship, as defined by the Minister of State, will be transmittable to their children, as provided for in clauses 16 and 17.
The situation for which I am attempting to provide is extremely hypothetical. Relations between the United Kingdom and China remain excellent in themselves and over Hong Kong. But the Bill, which was drafted so much with a view to the United Kingdom's own immigration problems—problems which are fully understood in Hong Kong—has, unfortunately, raised doubts, questions and uncertainties about the future of the colony and what Her Majesty's Government's attitude might be in certain circumstances.
I believe those circumstances to be a far-off matter. Nevertheless, the confirmation for which I have asked would be timely. It does not apply only to Hong Kong, it is very limited in extent, and it is without implications for United Kingdom immigration control. It would have a most reassuring effect after all the doubts that the Bill has raised.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am sure that if Gibraltar were a territory many thousands of miles away from Britain, there would not be one radio that was not tuned in to this debate. Had they been tuned in, it might have been the Gibraltarians' great misfortune to listen to the opening comments from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), who made some disgraceful remarks about a Bill which has had a satisfactory hearing in this House and in another place.
I should like, however, to make some comments on the new clause. Many of us in all parts of the House attempted to make the amendment before the Bill went to another place. In that respect we were unsuccessful. When the Bill reached the other place, an amendment was tabled by Lord Bethell. The Government, in their wisdom, thought it necessary to bring in the heavyweights. Indeed, they brought in Lord Soames, who was then the Lord President of the Council, and no less a person than the Lord Chancellor, who replied to the debate. But the Government failed. Indeed, they failed to such an extent

that the amendment is now brought back into this House as a new clause. I therefore pay great tribute to the Home Secretary and to the Minister of State for the way in which they have handled the matter. I agree that when the matter was debated in another place certain drafting amendments were necessary. They were accepted by my noble Friend Lord Bethell.
My right hon. Friend's new clause seeks to make it perfectly clear that the people of Gibraltar will be given the right on application for registration as British citizens. That is what my right hon. Friend has chosen to do. In my view, it has been a wise decision and, despite what the hon. Member for Edge Hill said, and despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), whose views I greatly respect, said about the people of Hong Kong, the most important aspect of the new clause is that the people of Gibraltar are United Kingdom citizens for Community purposes, and no other territories have that right as of now.
It was therefore right that my right hon. Friend should take cognisance of the decision that was taken in another place, because the people of Gibraltar have suffered badly for 18 years, although they have remained traditionally British and supported Britain in every respect. They did not expect the British Government to let them down in their appeal. All hon. Members—even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—were aware of the many thousands of petitions that were sent at great cost by the people of Gibraltar pleading for this new clause or a clause of some kind to be inserted in the Bill to permit the registration which my right hon. Friend has now conceded.
It has been a great moment for the people of Gibraltar and I assure my right hon. Friend that there will be great joy in Gibraltar this evening. It will be second only to that given to Their Royal Highnesses on the occasion of their recent visit to that territory. I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the people of Gibraltar. If he ever finds the time to visit Gibraltar, he will be more than welcome because its people have got what they wanted, to be British. In that respect, nothing better could have come out of the House this evening than this message to Gibraltar, despite the opposition of Liberal Members.

Mr. Christopher Price: It would be wrong if all the congratulations to Gibraltar emanated from one side of the Chamber. To achieve a certain bipartisan approach to the matter, I add my congratulations to the Government on seeing sense at the end of a very long day. I congratulate them on the way in which they drafted this amendment to a Lords amendment.
However, Mr. Speaker, the point that I want to raise is close to your heart. I want to draw attention to what could become a grave anomaly with the amendment drafted as it is. I am happy that Gibraltar has been embraced within the bosom of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Bill. That is absolutely proper. However, schedule 6 contains a list of territories which have not been embraced within the bosom of the United Kingdom. The list on page 61, headed by the word "Colonies", contains a territory which is not a colony at all. That is a grave defect in the Bill. It says:
The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (that is to say the areas mentioned in section 2(1) of the Cyprus Act 1960)".
In the negotiations to go into Europe one part of one dependent territory was treated for Commission


purposes—I hope that I shall be forgiven if I use Commission language which I learnt in one year at the European Assembly—as a PDOM rather than a PTOM; that is, a d#x00E9;partement outremer rather than a territoire outremer. It so happens that Gibraltar was the only dependent territory of Britain which was treated in this PDOM category when we negotiated our agreement with Europe. That enabled the Government to draft the amendment as they did.
7.15 pm
However, other European territories could be analogous to Gibraltar in future in exactly that way. This is an important issue, because it will arise in future, and the interpretation of the amendment will become a matter of extreme importance.
The association agreement between Cyprus and the European Economic Community envisaged ultimately that Cyprus would become a full member of the EEC. Only four countries have association agreements with the EEC—Turkey, Cyprus, Greece and Malta. Greece has acceded to the EEC. Cyprus, Malta and Turkey have not yet acceded. Yet the treaty agreements between those countries and the EEC foresee a final accession to the EEC. No one knows whether that will happen, but, if it does, there will be an obligation on the Government to say how the sovereign bases in Cyprus will be affected by this resolution. The Government have tabled a new clause which does not mention Gibraltar. It just states:
A British Dependent Territories' citizen … shall be entitled to register as a British citizen if an application is made for his registration as such a citizen
if he is a British dependent territories' citizen for the purpose of Community treaties. Community treaties are a flowing river. They change from time to time. I do not want to delay the congratulations of the massed "ranks of Tuscany" opposite who wish to get their words in about Gibraltar, but there are two questions that I hope the Government will answer in replying to the debate. Do they seriously regard the two sovereign base areas of 99 square miles on the island of Cyprus—I shall not go into detail, because, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order immediately if I were to go into the history—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been trying my patience for the past three minutes. I am an incurable optimist. I was hoping all the time that he was about to conclude.

Mr. Price: As always, Mr. Speaker, how right you are. I was about to conclude. I was concluding with two issues that I hope the Government will cover in their summing up. First, do they seriously regard the two sovereign base areas of Cyprus as colonies, as described in the schedule? That would seem to mark them out from this amendment. They are either Crown colonies or dependent territories. We want to know what status they will have if Cyprus accedes to the EEC. If the association agreement with Cyprus moves towards full membership of the EEC, what do the Government understand the position of the sovereign bases to be? Do they believe that they will come within the scope of this amendment? I might add that not many people live on the sovereign bases, because the boundaries were so drawn that very few could live there. Do the Government envisage that those few people who were born and live on those bases will be brought within

or remain outwith the scope of the amendment? It may be stretching a debate on Gibraltar to ask such a question, but it is important to get these matters straight.
It was only to try to get an answer to those two questions—whether they are colonies and whether they will come within this provision—that I rose to my feet. To your great relief, Mr. Speaker I now conclude.

Mr. Shersby: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained, this amendment means that, because Gibraltar is mentioned in the pre-accession treaties under the European Communities Act 1972, Gibraltarians alone of the citizens of the British dependent territories will be able to become British citizens with the right of abode in the United Kingdom. I should like to make it clear at the outset of my remarks that I have no overriding objections to my fellow citizens in Gibraltar being British citizens. I have an immense respect for them, for the fact that they are Europeans and for the fact that they already play an important part in our country's affairs.
However, I feel that it is wrong in principle for their Lordships to have amended the Bill in respect of the citizens of Gibraltar but not to have amended it in respect of that uniquely British colony, which is also a dependency, the Falkland Islands. I want to speak on that particular point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that amendment was not selected. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) was able, because Gibraltar had not been named, to ask whether other European territories were, as he counted it, included. But the Falkland Islands go far beyond the Lords amendment. Therefore, we must keep to the amendment.

Mr. Shersby: I am seeking to argue that the amendment made by their Lordships is unfairly discriminatory against another dependent territory. I am not seeking to debate the question of the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. However, had he so desired, he could have brought Hong Kong and everything else into his remarks.

Mr. Shersby: I completely and unreservedly accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendment which I tabled. I am sure that you know that that is so. However, I should like to know whether it is in order for me to argue against the amendment made by their Lordships in another place on the ground that it is unfairly discriminatory, and, in so doing, to advance the reasons why I believe it to be unfairly discriminatory. I cannot do that unless I can illustrate my remarks by drawing attention to some of the points that affect the Falkland Islands, without debating the Falkland Islands as such.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member will find himself, unfortunately, very restricted in what he can say. He knows that I did not select his amendment. Therefore, I ask him, as an old parliamentarian, to proceed in the knowledge that he cannot debate the Falkland Islands on this amendment.

Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall confine my remarks entirely to the Lords amendment with regard to Gibraltar, and I shall seek to argue that it is unfairly discriminatory against other dependent territories, including the Falkland Islands. I


hope that that will meet with your wishes, Mr. Speaker. I shall not refer to the Falkland Islands again during my remarks.
When their Lordships considered the amendment, they were faced with a text which referred entirely to the fact that the citizens of Gibraltar were to be treated in a special way because of their position as United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of the pre-accession treaties. No reference was made in the amendment to Gibraltar as such. It was only during the debate in another place that it became apparent that the consequences of accepting their Lordships' amendment would be to confer this special distinction on the citizens of one dependent territory as compared with citizens of another.
I read with great interest the remarks that were made in another place by the Lord Chancellor in seeking to persuade their Lordships not to accept this amendment. He made the point that if the amendment were accepted it would have an effect upon the homogeneity and solidarity of the Commonwealth. He said that there were British citizens living in other dependent territories who could, as a result of that amendment being passed, feel that they were in a second-class position.
I believe that the Lord Chancellor made an extremely valid point in reminding their Lordships that this was so. There is no doubt that the effect of this amendment will be to make British citizens in other dependent territories, including that to which I have already referred, feel that they are in some way different from the Gibraltarians, when many of them have a very much stronger claim to British citizenship than those who will get it under the Gibraltar amendment.
In other dependent territories there are British citizens who can trace their ancestry for four, five or six generations, but, because they are non-patrials, they do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. That is a very serious position for them. Consequently, they will look at the Gibraltar amendment and study the views expressed in another place by their Lordships, and they will be puzzled to know why it is that they are not to have the right of abode in this country whereas those who reside in Gibraltar are to have it.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say something about the position of those British citizens in other dependent territories who are non-patrials and who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, and that he will be able to give them some assurance that, although they are not to be treated in the same way as Gibraltarians, if their Lordships' amendment is accepted by this House, they may, nevertheless, receive very sympathetic consideration from the Home Office should they wish to enter this country at any time, particularly in times of difficulty which can be envisaged in certain territories around the world.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have kept strictly within your ruling by not referring to another place in the South Atlantic but confining my remarks entirely to what I have described as the unfair discrimination caused by the amendment. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make these remarks in this very important debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was tolerant.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Despite the difficulties under which he was labouring, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has reminded all those of us who have been concerned in detail with the Bill of an unsatisfactory feature of the Bill with which I feel that none of us was pleased at the end. I do not think that the Government were satisfied. I do not think that the rest of us were satisfied.
In delimiting our own citizenship we were unable to solve the problem of what came to be known as the British dependent territories. Therefore, we solved it verbally rather than in reality. We created a citizenship, so we called it, which had none of the attributes of a citizenship. We created a common citizenship which had no common features. I think that we all know that this is a blemish upon what is bound to be a major settlement of our national law. In considering this Lords amendment we are bound to be reminded of it, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge reminded the House of the difficulty.
Nevertheless, I cannot say that I am sorry, as one who, at an earlier stage, argued the special claims of Gibraltar, that they have to some extent been met by the Lords amendment or the amendment which is, one gathers, to supersede it. However, they have not been fully met for the following reason. We argued the case that, if Gibraltarians were as such nationals, they should—straightforwardly—be defined by the Bill as British citizens. The orginal way in which we attempted to do that was by bringing Gibraltar within the definition—for the purposes of the Bill—of the United Kingdom.
According to this amendment they are not being recognised as British citizens. As individuals they are being given, individually, an entitlement to claim and to pay—presumably separately—for registration. That falls short of the logical consequence of the acceptance of Gibraltarians as such as British nationals. I can understand why the Government, in both Houses, limited and qualified the nature of their concession in that way. They could claim that they were not treating the territory differently but merely some of the people who happened to turn up. The Government have used a device that is not wholly satisfactory. The people of Gibraltar have been generous in welcoming this form of acceptance. 
7.30 pm
Owing to the guillotine motion, it is possible that Lords amendment No. 33 will not be reached. I hope that I shall have your connivance, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House if I refer to something that occurs in the Home Secretary's amendment but that anticipates his amendment to Lords amendment No. 33. I refer to the expression "British Dependent Territories' Citizen". In anticipation, the right hon. Gentleman has written that into his amendment. I believe that I am right in saying that it is within the power of those who, between the completion of parliamentary proceedings on the Bill and Royal Assent, have a duty to prepare it for Royal Assent, to make certain changes, if necessary, to the punctuation. If the punctutation is manifestly inaccurate or fails to correspond with the clear intentions of both Houses of Parliament, I believe that that power exists.
I suggest that it might be possible to treat a comma and an apostrophe, for this purpose, as being of like effect. That would enable the right hon. Gentleman to avoid implanting a most horrible solecism on British nationality law. The apostrophe that follows "Territories"—instead of


"British Dependent Territories"—is a monstrous piece of English. The word "Territories" is a noun epithet qualifying "citizen". It is, as it were, like "barnyard" in "barnyard fowl". To come nearer to the subject before us, it is like "Pakistan" in "Pakistan citizen", which is the correct description of that type of national. To come nearer to my home, it is like "Ulster" in the expression "Ulster Protestant".
In none of those cases would we dream of referring to a "Pakistan's citizen" or "the Pakistan's citizen". We would not dream of saying a "barnyard's fowl", because we do not apply the mark of the genitive—and should not apply it—to a noun that is being treated as an adjective. It is not a genitive but an adjective qualifying, in this case, the word "citizen". Therefore, the apostrophe is entirely solecistic; and, despite the reference to Cyprus—the home of "solecism"—that has been made in this short debate, the Home Secretary would not wish a solecism to find its way on to the statute book through his agency.
My remarks are serious in intent. If they were not, I would not have taken up the time of the House. We are creating a description for a class of people and we had better create one that is in decent, normal English. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary—who will not have to deal with this matter by way of amendment, or otherwise—will discover, with the help of others, that between the conclusion of tonight's procedure and the Bill's eventual presentation for Royal Assent he can bring "Territories" into the status of a noun epithet by omitting the apostrophe.

Sir Albert Costain: Owing to the guillotine motion, we are coming to the end of our debate and I shall, therefore, make a one-minute speech. The amendment worries me, because it refers to Community treaties. If a Labour Government were ever foolish enough to take Britain out of the Common Market, what position would the Gibraltarians be in? Will they then have the right to British citizenship or will they go back to square one?

Mr. Tilley: I shall speak briefly on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench. In such a short debate I felt it right—in view of the impending guillotine—to allow hon. Members with greater expertise on the various territories to have time to speak. However, some of them have managed to display their expertise without mentioning the territories concerned.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I very much support the Government's decision. It will give a sense of security to Gibraltarians. To some extent that sense of security has been undermined, even since our last debate on this issue. Since then, the naval dockyard has been threatened with closure and various proposals have been put forward regarding Spain's accession to NATO. Some people in Madrid think that if Spain joins NATO it will have some of the rights over Gibraltar that it has long claimed. Therefore, it is even more necessary now than it was when we last debated and supported this idea to give the people of Gibraltar extra security.
We welcome the Government's acceptance of the strong views expressed both in this Chamber and in the other place, as well as those expressed by the Gibraltarian and British publics. We certainly accept the extra gloss about citizenship by descent rather than by registration. I shall attempt to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain)

Although the next Labour Government will, within a few years, withdraw Britain from the Common Market, the Gibraltarians will act quickly once the Bill has been enacted. Most of their registration forms will be in within weeks and months and not within the year or so that it will take to elect a Labour Government.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that Gibraltarians will be able to register in Gibraltar and to go through all the processes there? Will he confirm that they will not have to come here to do that? The right hon. Gentleman's confirmation would be helpful. I pay tribute to the courage of those Conservative Members who have challenged their Whips successfully during the past few months. I remind them, the people of Gibraltar and other hon. Members that their success was due not only to their courage but also to the solid support given by Labour Members since the idea was first mooted. We have always supported the right of Gibraltarians to acquire British citizenship.
I should like to take up the remarks the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Every colony is different. Indeed, we made that point at the beginning. We do not like umbrella citizenship, because each colony is different. Therefore, we supported a separate form of citizenship for each colony. If that had been accepted, we should have moved to a system in which each colony—like Gibraltar—had a settlement suitable to its circumstances. Indeed, that will be done in the Bill that will replace this.
We support the Government's amendment and their gracious concession to Gibraltar. We hope similar settlements will be made for each colony, including the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong and the sovereign bases in Cyprus, as part of our legislative contribution in the first Session when the next Labour Government come to power.

Mr. Whitelaw:: I shall seek to reply briefly to some of the important questions that have been raised. I found the remarks by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) surprising. We have bowed to the will of Parliament. We have bowed to the will of some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in another place. It is curious that he should castigate us for doing what his colleagues asked us to do. It is strange. I recognise that one of his colleagues did not ask us to do this but his behaviour is strange. We have done what Parliament thought that it wanted to be done. It is odd to be castigated for it.

Mr. Alton: The Home Secretary, more than most, is prepared to be conciliatory. I am grateful that he has accepted the amendment. He is mistaken if he feels that I was castigating him. I was saying that I wished that the same amendment applied to citizens in other colonies who feel just as strongly as Gibraltarians.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is what the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in another place tried to do.
My hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned the effect that the amendment will have on the Falkland Islands. Assurances have been given to that territory at various stages and they still stand. That is the best that I can say.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend explain the assurances?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, I have done my best. I cannot do more.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman leads the Home Secretary into temptation, we cannot discuss the Falkland Islands.

Sir Bernard Braine: All that I want is for the Home Secretary to spell out in two sentences exactly what the assurances are.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am saying that assurances that have been given before still stand. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East knows as well as I what those assurances are. If I say that they stand, they stand. That is reasonable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) referred to the feeling of discrimination felt by Hong Kong citizens. Again I am in difficulty. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would prefer it if I wrote in detail to my hon. Friend setting out the exact position as we now see it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) for what he said. Parliament has decided. I argued the other way before, but I am glad that the House thinks that Parliament has decided correctly.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for what he said about Gibraltar. I understand that if Cyprus were ever to become a full member of the European Community we should then have to consider afresh the position of the sovereign base areas. For people in the sovereign base areas to benefit from the Gibraltar amendment they would first have to declare themselves as nationals for EEC purposes. To some extent, since this depends on whether Cyprus becomes a member of the Community, it is a hypothetical question. I hope that I have done my best to answer the point.

Mr. Christopher Price: The right hon. Gentleman used carefully drafted words. It sounds as though the individuals who were born and now live in the two sovereign base areas could now register. Will the Home Secretary make it clear that he is talking wholly hypothetically in the event of Cyprus joining the Community?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was talking wholly hypothetically. I hope that I have made myself clear. When seen, I am sure that my words will bear that interpretation. I certainly meant them to.
I am advised that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), as one would expect in connection with our procedures, is entirely correct. Punctuation is usually regarded as having no legal effect on a Bill. For that reason the Public Bill Office of the House of Lords usually is amenable to altering punctuation. I shall, therefore, ask the House of Lords whether the matter can be put right.
I turn to remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) and the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). Since I regard the Cyprus position as hypothetical, I am entitled to regard the likelihood of Britain leaving the EEC as very hypothetical—and so I do, despite what the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central said.
I was asked whether citizens of Gibraltar would be able to register there. I understand that I have the power under the Bill's regulations to give them that right. I certainly agree that that is sensible.
Question put and agreed to.

New clause to the Bill in lieu thereof:

New Clause B

ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: NATIONALS FOR PURPOSES OF THE COMMUNITY TREATIES

B. A British Dependent Territories' citizen who falls to be treated as a national of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Community Treaties shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if an application is made for his registration as such a citizen.'.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Clause 12

RESUMPTION

Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

Clause 13

MEANING OF BRITISH CITIZEN BY DESCENT".

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 14, line 9, at end insert—
(bb) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section 3(1) and either—

 his father or mother was a British citizen at the time of birth; or
 his father or mother was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at that time and became a British citizen at commencement, or would have done so but for his or her death; or"

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 49.

Mr. Raison: Under the Government's further proposals on descent, there could be children in the second generation born overseas who are born to British citizens by descent, neither of whom has the statutory connections with this country to give the child an entitlement to registration as a British citizen. In some cases, however, there could be good reason why they should be registered under the Secretary of State's discretion to register any minor child. And this could also happen with the third or even subsequent generations born overseas. Before registering children born overseas in the second and subsequent generations, regard would naturally be had to the strength of the child's likely connections with this country. It is important in this connection that in exercising this discretion the Secretary of State will take into account the special problems facing British business families on long-term service overseas.
It is important that this discretion should be fairly widely available. But registration at discretion under the Bill as drafted would give citizenship otherwise than by descent. This is because the use of the discretion has been envisaged as applying in general only to children whose future lies in this country. That has, however, now changed and this amendment ensures that where children are registered because of their descent from parents who are British citizens, they are registered as citizens by descent themselves.
In the case of children born after commencement, their parents will, of course, themselves be British citizens by descent. It would be illogical in this context to give the



children a right to transmit which their parents do not have. It is of course also possible that some children will be registered who have been born before commencement to people who are citizens otherwise than by descent. There would be the children of United Kingdom born mothers who do not now inherit their mother's citizenship at birth, but whom it has been the practice to register since February 1979 unless there is a well-founded objection from the father. These children also should be citizens by descent, since had they had a father born here they would have been citizens by descent at birth, and it seems illogical that discretion being exercised in their favour should result in a more favourable status as far as passing on citizenship to the next generation.
The amendment is therefore necessary to ensure a logical citizenship scheme, as well as to make it easier to take a generous attitude to registration of children born in the second and subsequent generations overseas.
Amendment No. 49 is equivalent, for citizenship of the British dependent territories, to an earlier amendment agreed by this House to the scheme of British citizenship. It would mean that a child registered under the Home Secretary's power to register minors in clause 16(1) would be a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent, if his parents were themselves such citizens, or would have been so but for their death.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 14, line 25, leave out "(i) or (ii)"

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is of a technical nature. It is intended to put right a minor omission in the construction of clause 13(1)(d).
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment disagreed to: No. 29, in page 14, line 25, at end insert—
( ) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section A; or"—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 14, line 9, at end insert—
(bbb) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section B; or'.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 14, line 34, after "descent"" insert
by virtue of subsection (1)(b) or (c)

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical drafting amendment which is designed to clarify the scope of the proviso to clause 13(1) in clause 13(2).
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32 agreed to.

Clause 14

ACQUISITION BY BIRTH OR ADOPTION

Lords amendment:No. 33, in page 15, line 5, leave out
citizen of the British Dependent Territories
and insert "British Dependent Territories' citizen".

(Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government consequential amendments and Government amendments to Lords amendments Nos. 35, 37, 47, 49, 53 and 89.

Mr. Luce:: The amendment would change the first reference to a citizen of the British dependent territories in clause 14(1) to a British dependent territories' citizen. The only difference between the description now proposed and that currently in the Bill is in the order of the words. It would mean that "British" would appear first in the title.
We have stressed more than once, both in the House and in another place, that the Bill will not alter the present constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and its dependent territories. Nevertheless, we accept that many people in the territories would prefer that their citizenship title began with the word "British" to make completely clear their links with this country.
The new description would not alter their status. If the status were to be described as is proposed, we do not believe that the relationship of the holders of it to the United Kingdom would be different from what is envisaged in the Bill as it stands. This change in title, however small it may seem to hon. Members, will be warmly welcomed by the dependent territories.
Once the amendment has been agreed, it will be necessary to make similar changes to other references to citizens and citizenship of the British dependent territories throughout the Bill and in relevant Lords amendments that are agreed by the House. That is what the consequential amendments are designed to achieve. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department dealt with the important issue raised earlier on the power of punctuation, as argued by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman feels that that issue has been dealt with adequately.

Mr. Tilley: First, I congratulate the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on his new status, on avoiding the guillotine by a few minutes and on managing to put in a brief appearance before we return to matters concerning these islands and the responsibilities of the Minister of State, Home Office.
It is clear that the apostrophe is already in the ashcan of history. I do not think that we need go into the grammatical aspects of the new phraseology. Its purpose, as was made clear in another place, is to enable those in the dependent territories to call themselves British people when they are asked to state their nationality either when completing forms or when asked directly by an official. It does not change the status of their passports. Any immigration officer in any part of the world who knows his job will be well aware that their status is different from that of British citizens in part I.
The representatives from Hong Kong—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), who knows their feelings and fears especially well, is no longer in his place—wanted to be seen as British. They did not want the same treatment as Gibraltarians in the sense of acquiring British citizenship and the right of entry. They wanted to be seen as British nationals in terms of international law. They do not have that. However, I think that they will be happy, although they have little more than a shadow of it in the new terminology which puts "British" at the beginning of the category in which they now come. 


As I have said, every colony is a special case. We have argued that umbrella citizenship was wrong because each colony was a separate case and should have been dealt with as such. We said that there was no reason for the far-flung bits of empire that are left to us to have the same citizenship. We argued further that giving separate citizenship would not hinder the acquisition of independence, which we contend is the objective of all the colonies that still remain, where that is legally possible.
During the Bill's passage two of the territories in schedule 6 have acquired independence—namely, one colony, Belize, and one associated state, Antigua. We welcome that. If there were time, we would discuss the status of those ex-colonies on the various amendments that remove them from schedule 6 and place them in schedule 3 as full independent members of the Commonwealth.
In Committee the Minister of State said that the various immigration rules of the colonies would have to be brought into line with the citizenship provisions in part II. He added that he had every expectation that that would be done. What progress has been made? During the long interval in which we have been determining the final shape of the Bill, I think that the main outlines have been clear. I am sure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been at work.
An area of particular concern was Bermuda. Has there been any effective progress? If not, how long will it be before the hon. Gentleman is in a position to report that progress has been made? We are anxious that immigration and citizenship should go hand in hand with British citizenship. We may argue about which hand should be in which when discussing citizenship and immigration, but we have never suggested that there should not be a close connection.
In another place Lord Tanlaw talked about Pitcairn. He said that short-wave radio hams were receiving pleas for information from those who claimed to be natives of Pitcairn. As one was Mr. Christian, I assume that the messages were genuine. If the Minister does not have time to reply before the guillotine falls, perhaps he will let us have a reply by letter or by some other suitable means—

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Or by short wave radio.

Mr. Tilley: I think that the Whip means "Don't ring us, we'll ring you."
It being Eight o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [26 October], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eight o'clock.
Consequential amendments agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I am required to put the Question on any Government amendment to a Lords amendment followed by the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in that amendment, as amended. The Lords amendments in question are Nos. 35, 37, 43, 47, 49 and 53. To save time, and if the House will give me permission, I shall put together the Government amendments to those Lords amendments.
Amendments to Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendments, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 43

DECISIONS INVOLVING EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

Lords amendment: No. 61, in page 38, line 8, at beginning insert:
Subject to subsection (1) herein,

Mr. Raison: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is far from clear. Clause 43(2) provides that the Secretary of State shall not be required to give reasons for decisions on applications which are at discretion and that such decisions shall not be subject to appeal to or review in any court. The amendment would make the subsection subject to the provisions of the preceding subsection. That states that the discretionary powers in the Bill shall be exercised without regard to an applicant's race, colour or religion.
But there is an inherent difficulty in this amendment since clause 43(1) and (2) are concerned with two different situations. Clause 43(1) —what might be called the antidiscrimination provision—is concerned with the procedures leading up to the decision whether to grant citizenship. The first concerns the reaching of a decision which is a discretion without regard to the applicant's race, colour or religion. The second is concerned with access to the courts if a discretionary decision is challenged. To say that clause 43(2) is subject to clause 43(1), without explaining in what sense it is subject, can only make for obscurity and confusion. That seems to us to be a major objection to the amendment.
However, even if that problem of meaning were to be resolved, I am afraid that the amendment would still remain unacceptable to us. As I understand it, the intention, if not the effect, of the amendment is to ensure that an applicant who believes that he has been discriminated against on grounds of race, colour or religion should not be barred from taking the matter up with the courts by the general bar on access to the courts in discretionary cases set out in clause 43(2). But such a provision would, in our view, have serious drawbacks. It would mean that everyone whose application was refused would be able to challenge the Secretary of State's decision in the courts merely by alleging that he had been discriminated against on grounds of race, colour or religion.
As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, such a provision would have undesirable consequences. After all, in deciding whether the applicant concerned had been subject to discrimination, a court seized of a case would clearly have to consider the Secretary of State's actual grounds for refusal, which would have to be disclosed. So this amendment might, in practice, lead to the Secretary of State having to give reasons for his decision, even in cases where that was clearly undesirable. As we see it, a system of review of discretionary decisions is fundamentally incompatible with the system of naturalisation as it appears in the Bill. That system was accepted both by this House and by another place.
Under that system, the final decision on naturalisation applications rests with the Secretary of State, and one of the criteria for citizenship is, as hon. Members will recall, the essentially subjective assessment of good character. As


I have explained to the House on earlier occasions, if there were to be an appeal system involving examination of good character, it would considerably fetter the Secretary of State's discretion. It would mean that we should have to rely more and more on objective tests relating to an applicant's financial or criminal record. Applicants who fell short of generally accepted standards of behaviour, but whose activities had not been proved unlawful, could no longer fall to be refused, and the standards for naturalisation would thus inevitably be lowered. Particularly, difficulties would also arise with security cases. If a person refused on grounds of security were to allege that he had been discriminated against, would it be necessary for the whole matter to be raised in open court?
There is also the related problem of reasons. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House on Report, it is our practice to give reasons for the refusal of naturalisation applications whenever possible and particularly when the reasons for refusal are matters which in time the applicant might overcome—such as the language requirement. But there are cases where the giving of reasons is not so easy and matters are not so clear cut: where refusal is on a combination of factors; where, for instance, an individual has criminal associations which have not as yet led to charges and convictions but may do so; where an individual's financial reputation and dealings have been dubious, but have not yet led him to bankruptcy. In such cases, giving reasons would be difficult. The work of the police and the authorities could be hampered, since the individual would become aware that his activities had come to official notice.

Those arguments apply all the more powerfully to security cases, where refusal on grounds of national security would alert an individual to the fact that his activities were under scrutiny. Nevertheless, the amendment, if it were to remain in the Bill, might be used successfully by applicants as an indirect means of discovering the reasons for refusal of their application where those had not already been given to them, even in cases in which it would not be appropriate or not in the public interest for the reasons for refusal to be divulged in public. With this amendment an aggrieved individual might, by alleging discrimination—and he might in practice need to offer only very minimal evidence—secure disclosure of the actual reasons for refusal and a review of that decision.
Finally, I should point out that removal of the amendment—which, in any case, as I have already explained, is of very uncertain effect—will not mean that those who believe that they have been discriminated against will be without means of redress. They will, as now, be able to take the matter up with their Member of Parliament. Where maladministration is alleged—which it presumably would be if a breach of clause 43(1) were in question—Parliament has its Commissioner for Administration—the Ombudsman—to investigate if the case is referred to him.
To sum up, the Government believe that the amendment is of uncertain effect; that, if it were interpreted as apparently intended, it could have harmful and far-reaching consequences; and that there are already remedies available to those who feel that their application for citizenship has been dealt with in a discriminatory manner. For all those reasons, I call upon the House to disagree to the amendment.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I hope that on this occasion the Commons will feel that wisdom resides with the Lords and will support the proposal from another place. It is embodied in what I regard as an admirably simple amendment. I say that so that there shall be no doubt as to why I support it and why I believe that my hon. Friends will wish to do so.
The amendment simply calls for clause 43(2) to be conditional upon the obligations placed upon any Government by subsection (1) of the same clause. Subsection (2) provides that in responding to an application for registration or nationalisation
The Secretary of State … shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application under this Act the decision of which is at his discretion; and the decision of the Secretary of State … on any such application shall not be subject to appeal to, or review in, any court.
That is a comprehensive allowance for the Secretary of State to use a discretion which is entirely unfettered. If the Lords amendment is incorporated, that at present unfettered discretion will be qualified in one particular way. The provision in subsection (1), which the amendment seeks to incorporate seeks to link to what follows:
Any discretion vested by or under this Act in the Secretary of State … shall be exercised without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by its exercise.
It is important that the history of subsection (1) should be made absolutely clear. The subsection was incorporated by the Government in Committee, with the enthusiastic support of the Opposition, albeit against the wishes of one or two Tory Back Benchers. In proposing it, if I may say so without sounding patronising or condescending, the Minister of State spoke with great eloquence about the Government's determination to apply the Bill in a nondiscriminatory way. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and I both congratulated him on establishing beyond doubt a point that we would quote—we hoped, to his and the Government's credit—namely, the Government's determination to apply the principles embodied in the clauses dealing with applications for citizenship in a way which could not and would not be in any way discriminatory with regard to race or religion.
We were told at that stage that this was a declaration, no more that that. Its effect was wholly declaratory. I welcomed that declaration, if it was no more that that. I think that a declaration of non-discriminatory intention in this part of the Bill did something to allay the fears of the ethnic minorities. If the Government have their way today, and if the Lords do not ask us to reconsider their proposals later in the week, I shall still regard the addition of subsection (1) to clause 43 as an advantage and an improvement.
The second historical point that the House must bear in mind concerns subsection (2), which it is proposed to modify. That subsection gives the Home Secretary a wholly unfettered discretion. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe in both an appeals system and what must go with an appeals system if it is to work, namely, the obligation on the Home Secretary of the day to publish the reasons for his refusal to grant naturalisation or registration.
I do not believe, however—and here I cross swords with the Minister of State and take issue with him—that by accepting the Lords amendment we are opening up the entire area of appeals and notification. Towards the end 


of his remarks the Minister either said or implied that to allow this single limitation on the Secretary of State's discretion was to open up the whole range of appeals and to require the Secretary of State to stipulate why he had refused an application. That is what I should like to see come about. The new nationality Act which must be introduced in the future must include an appeals system preceded by an explanation of why an application has been refused. But I do not believe that that is what we are debating today. We are debating a much narrower point concerning race and religion which need not, if it is sensibly applied, and in my view cannot, no matter how it is applied, open up the entire issue of appeals and explanations. I believe that unfettered discretion is wrong in general, but it would be disastrous if we provided today that a Home Secretary of any party had unfettered discretion to operate in a way which was discriminatory in terms of race or religion. 
8.15 pm
The Minister of State may argue that no Home Secretary supported by the House would ever behave in such a fashion. I concede at once that it is inconceivable that the present incumbent would do so, at least by intention. These matters are always subject to occasional, inadvertent administrative slips, but clearly the present Home Secretary would never remotely behave in a way which needed to be described the amendment suggests. Equally important, however, is the obligation upon the House to state that, having declared our opposition to racial and religious discrimination, we shall do our best to incorporate it into the Bill in such a fashion that a person who feels that he has been subject to such an unacceptable act is able to seek some kind of redress and compensation in law.
When the matter was debated in the House of Lords on 28 July, noble Lords who could not be described, in the patois of some Tory Back Benchers, as "part of the race relations industry"—Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Viscount Colville of Culross and Lord Mackay of Clashfern—all advocated the course that I now advocate and were uncertain during that debate as to the exact reasons for the Government's opposition.

Mr. Raison: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can say that Lord Mackay advocated the course that he describes. Lord Mackay is the Lord Advocate. He may have been advocating, but he was certainly not advocating that course.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry. Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Viscount Colville advocated that course. They went on to say that Lord Mackay had offered three objections to it which they found confusing and in conflict with one another. It is indeed with Lord Mackay's speech that I wish to deal in detail before turning to the Minister of State's remarks. I am sorry if I inadvertently included Lord Mackay among those who had taken a more rational view of the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Viscount Colville, who are not normally regarded as part of the race relations lobby, argued that Lord Mackay was making three criticisms of the proposal. First, he said that the amendment was unnecessary in that a general prohibition on racial discrimination already applied. If the Minister of State has

the opportunity to speak again—I am sure that the House will be happy to give him leave to do so—I hope that he will expand a little on Lord Mackay's point that subsections (1) and (2) are not simply taken together but are both part of the whole Bill, that the Bill must be examined as a whole, and that, therefore, if subsection (1) remains in the Bill, it applies in every sense to all parts of the Bill. Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Viscount Colville both took that to mean that there might possibly be a recourse to law if there were a fear of the kind of discrimination that we seek to avoid.
Having argued that the amendment was unnecessary, however, the Lord Advocate then argued that it was undesirable because it would oblige the Government to give reasons for refusal—a point with which I shall deal in a moment. Thirdly, he argued that it was unworkable because it was less than precise in describing the redress that an applicant who suspected racial discrimination would be able to obtain.
When I mentioned this proposal yesterday, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I believe, described subsection (1) as meaningless. By that, I think he meant that it could not be tested in court. I repeat what I said a moment ago. If that were all that subsection (1) stood for, I would regard it as valuable as a sign and a promise. The ethnic minorities have had plenty of signs from Government supporters in the recent past which are likely to encourage their feelings of insecurity and to increase their apprehensions about their future status. I have no doubt at all that a sign—if that is all the subsection is—is valuable in itself. However, the Opposition argue that it would be much better if the aggrieved applicant, or the applicant who believes himself to be aggrieved, were able to appeal to the courts and say "I was excluded from British citizenship only because of my race or religion", and feel that he had some redress there.
What are the possible objections to this amendment, which received such wide support and enjoyed such a large majority in the other place? I suppose that there are two basic objections. The first was best described in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he talked in general about the Home Secretary's discretion. As I remember it, the right hon. Gentleman was not offended—indeed, I think that he was positively flattered, as I half meant him to be—when I said that his objection to limiting in any way the Home Secretary's discretion in these matters was mystical. I argued that the right hon. Gentleman believed as a matter of principle that the Home Secretary, acting as the embodiment of the State, ought to have the right to accept or refuse applications for citizenship according to whatever seemed to him to be appropriate reasons because it was the State's right to deny additional citizenships.
Those hon. Members who want to cleave to this mystical concept of government will choose to do so. But that is not for me nor, I suspect, for the Government. My own suspicion is that the Government's objection is the sort put to them by civil servants who, while saying that the objects of the clause are undoubtedly worthy, add, "They are undoubtedly objects that you, Minister, subscribe to as you moved the new subsection (1). But if you try to give them any force and meaning, they will, in that time hallowed phrase, be administratively unworkable". What crimes have been committed in the name of those things that are administratively unworkable! 


For my part, I do not accept that to be the case. The Minister of State confirmed my suspicion that those were his objections by talking again in the language of the administrative classes of the Civil Service. He referred to "very serious drawbacks". But while some drawbacks certainly exist, they are nothing like sufficiently substantial to justify the withdrawal from applicants of what to some of us seems to be a basic right, namely, the right to ensure that if they are not allowed to become British citizens they shall be assured, and have it proved to them, that that is not because of their race or religion.
The Minister of State said that if we inserted this one proviso to limit the Home Secretary's discretion it would require him to give all the reasons that might have motivated him to refuse an application, including those reasons that were not concerned with the applicant's race or religion, I do not believe that for a moment. The several distinguished lawyers who spoke on this subject in the other place all believed that it was a workable proposition and that a man or woman who genuinely believed that the reason for the refusal concerned his or her race or religion should, and could, be able to take the case to court on that limited point, and that the Home Secretary should or would be able to demonstrate his good intentions and honourable behaviour in this particular alone.
As the Minister knows, I have always accepted that some refusals of British citizenship might be made for reasons that are good in themselves but that cannot be explained in open court. I have always accepted that security considerations might make it impossible for the Home Secretary to say, "I am denying this man British citizenship and this woman registration and these are the reasons". But I have always taken the view that in such cases the Home Secretary ought to announce simply and baldly that it has been refused for reasons concerning the security of the State, and that in itself would be a protection from any action in the courts which could and should be written into legislation.
On the other hand, I do not see why, as a matter of administrative opportunity and legal possibility, it is not possible for the courts to adjudicate on this simple principle that a man or woman claims to have been refused for this specific reason and that the Home Secretary refutes the specific nature of the claim and complaint, if refutation is possible.
The Minister suggested that there would be some frivolous or fractious applications and that men and women who had patently been refused British citizenship for some other reason might complain that the only thing held against them was their race and religion. In any case, I am deeply worried about denying rights to a few merely because others may unreasonably try to exploit that loophole.
Other hon. Members know more about this subject than I do. But I suspect that the costs in such cases would prohibit many specious applications, frivolous complaints or fractious actions. I suspect that the actions that do come about, but only in small numbers, will come from people who genuinely believe that British citizenship has been denied them because of their race and religion.
I do not believe that many cases of this sort will be brought to court if the two clauses are related in the way their Lordships propose. But to fail to give power to the Minister's admirable original proposition to demonstrate the Government's good intentions and their determination to avoid racial and religious bias would do enormous 

damage. To implement that would give the clause real power and move us forward a great deal along the road to a position where we could genuinely argue that at least parts of the Bill did not bear unequally on the different communities that make up Great Britain. It is enormously important to do that for the sake of good race relations in this country.
The Government may well persist in rejecting the Lords amendment. With the guillotine and Whips at their backs they may carry the day. If that is the case, I hope that their Lordships are as wise this week as they were on 28 July.

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall gladly give way, but I suspect that the Minister will want to speak at least once more.

Mr. Raison: This is an important debate and it is right that the protagonists on both sides of the House should be clearly understood. I return to what the right hon. Gentleman said about whether the courts can look at the question solely in terms of an application dealing with colour, race or religion.
If somebody appealed to the courts on the ground that the Home Secretary's discretion had been exercised in a biased and prejudiced way, what would happen in the court? The appellant would put forward his argument. He would say, "The Home Secretary has behaved in a biased way about colour. The reasons have not been given so I do not know what they are." How would the court be able to judge the issue without probing into the reasons for refusal? The argument cannot be contained at the level that it is—simply race, religion or colour. In most cases the courts would have to penetrate the argument to find out what the reasons for refusal were before they could decide whether it was a matter of colour.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State and I obviously disagree about what is practical. I believe that it would be possible for the Home Secretary to demonstrate his good intentions without having to refer to all the reasons for refusal. Even if the Minister is right—and I do not believe that he is—I hope that, when he speaks again, he will tell us what Lord Mackay meant when he said:
The court in reading subsection (2) of this clause would read it in the light of all the provisions of the Bill, including subsection (1)."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 28 July 1981; Vol. 423, c. 695.]
Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Mishcon and Viscount Colville, who followed the Lord Advocate, took that at least half to mean that this subsection had force, since it was already part of the Bill and, as part of the Bill, must be related to the whole Bill. Although we can do no more than disagree about the practicalities of such an application, I hope that before the night is over we shall be told the relevance of that point, made with the authority of the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Stanbrook: I was one of those who originally opposed the provision—indeed, I still disapprove of it—requiring the Secretary of State or the lieutenant-governor to exercise his discretion without regard to race, colour or religion. It is contrary to the spirit of Conservatism, because there should not be empty gestures in legislation. Abstract human rights should not be conceded without the means of enforcing them. It means that, although we state that a certain thing shall be done,


we are not providing, as we should, the means of ensuring that it can be done and that it can be enforced in a court of law.
To that extent, I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) says. It was a mistake to have inserted the provision in this part of the Bill. In the Bill as originally printed it was the part that is now subsection (2), and it should have been left like that.
However, an amendment has been made linking the two subsections in a curious way. It is hard to believe that it was drafted by a former Lord Chancellor, because the effect of the amendment is to make nonsense of subsection (2). Subsection (1) is the commandment that the Secretary of State shall behave in a non-racial way in the exercise of his discretion. Subsection (2) says that he is not to give reasons for his decisions and that no court shall inquire into them. Linking the two subsections by saying that subsection (2) is subject to subsection (1) is unnecessary verbiage that does not convey the intention or the consequences that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. If the other place had wanted to reverse the principle of subsection (2), it could have done so simply by saying that the Secretary of State, in exercising his discretion under the Act, shall give reasons and his decisions shall be subject to review by the courts. That would have been straightforward and would have been far more acceptable than what has been done.
I am sorry to suggest that people with whose logic I agree have produced a way to achieve their object that is ham-fisted and leaves the whole thing impossible to carry out. Let us have it one way or the other. Either the Secretary of State's decisions may be challenged in the courts or they may not. If they may not, why tell him that he has a statutory duty to do anything? There is no point in legislating unless we ensure that the Secretary of State complies with the requirements by some process through the courts.
The introduction of subsection (1) makes the clause nonsense. The amendment from the other place would make it even more so. Subsection (1) is part of the Bill, as is subsection (2), and linkage of the two is not meaningful.

Mr. Hattersley: What is the nature of the nonsense about which the hon. Gentleman complains? Is such a provision nonsense because it would give an applicant the right to appeal to the court or because, despite the linkage, it would still not give him the right?

Mr. Stanbrook: It would not give him any such right. I do not disagree with the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but the object of the exercise was to have the Secretary of State's decision subject to review by the court, so the amendment should be that the Secretary of State must give his reasons and they may be challenged in court.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and I do not have that disadvantage. All the objections concerning administrative convenience and fractious applications come to naught in the hon. Gentleman's view, because the right to appeal to the court would not exist.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is the commonsense view. I agree with the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's 

argument. It is about the first time that we have agreed on the Bill. However, we must do one thing or the other. We must either provide a proper channel to the court to challenge the Secretary of State's decisions or say that they shall not be challenged in any court. In that event we should not put a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In Committee and on Report the hon. Gentleman voted against amendments designed to provide a resort to the courts. He says that the provision is useless without resort to the courts but he made certain that there would be no such resort by voting against earlier amendments that I and others proposed.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is true. I do not believe that decisions within the Secretary of State's discretion should be challenged in the courts. However, we are not discussing that. We are discussing the merits of the amendment and not what I would have in the Bill. If I were drafting it, it might be different.
We are discussing a manoeuvre by the Lords to provide for some form of judicial review. They have done it by linking subsection (1), which imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State, with subsection (2), which says that his decisions shall not be challenged in the court. That is nonsense. Let us not make foolish legislation. If there is to be a challenge in the courts, we should say that the decisions are subject to review by the court.
I believe that the original wording of the clause was acceptable. If we are talking about discretion, it is a subjective view of the merits of an application for naturalisation. It is not something for which reasons can be given that can be challenged in court. I therefore see no need for the injunction of subsection (1). I approve of the Government's general stance that there should not be a review in the court.

Mr. Peter Archer: The issue is simple. The Government do not dispute that there should be a non-discrimination clause. Indeed, the Minister of State introduced it in Committee. As he said, he did so to allay the fears of minority communities.
There were such fears. There was a deep anxiety among minority communities. They felt that where a decision would profoundly affect the lives of people they ought to know the reasons to enable them to challenge mistakes which had crept into the file, to understand what they had to do to rectify matters and, at the very least, so that they might go away understanding why they had not received the answer for which they were hoping. Of course there were anxieties.
In Committee, the Minister of State fairly accepted that there were those anxieties. The purpose of introducing the non-discrimination clause was to allay those fears. So presumably the Government intend the clause to be effective. They intend it to have a purpose. Surely they cannot have intended to allay the fears of minority communities, without dealing with the grounds for those fears, by a declaration which was totally empty—which was sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and I are certainly at one on this. We may disagree about whether there ought to be a right at all, but we agree that it is illogical, misleading and unfair to introduce a right and then not to introduce a remedy. Before the debate began, I should


have thought that that was almost dishonest. That is not an allegation that I would make against the Minister of State. I believe that he must just be very confused.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the amendment may have some value as a declaration. But, as a method of setting people's fears at rest, it is a non-starter. None the less, it is introduced and included in the same clause as another subsection which states that all the rights in the Bill are to be unenforceable. Common sense and logic would suggest that the two cancel each other out. What is the Government's answer? What is their quarrel with common sense and logic and why are they so anxious to resist the amendment?
Before the debate began I thought that I knew the answer to the last question because in another place the Lord Advocate gave some reasons. One reason, as has already been said more than once in the debate, was that he thought that the amendment would not achieve its purpose. He stated that, since the two subsections dealt with two different stages of the process, it would not make sense to say that one was subject to the other.
I am not persuaded by that argument. The courts are perfectly capable of understanding what is meant. There is only one thing that the words could mean—the inhibitions on challenge in subsection (2) shall not apply to a challenge on the ground that subsection (1) has not been complied with. Any English speaker would understand that that is what was meant. But let us suppose that I am wrong and that the Minister is right about this. Then the argument would be that the drafting was defective.
With all the Government's resources, surely they can produce an amended draft. It would be monstrous, in a debate of this kind on a fundamental issue of principle—whether a non-discrimination clause introduced by the Government should be effective—for them to shelter behind a drafting point.

Mr. Raison: I was not sheltering behind a drafting deficiency. I pointed out that, in our view, there was a drafting deficiency. I attempted to explain that it concerned the linkage between subsections (1) and (2). However, I made it clear that the principal reason for my objection was the practical question of what would happen if one went to court and argued that the Home Secretary had refused somebody's application for naturalisation on grounds of colour, race or religion. How could that be argued without the true reasons for the refusal coming before the court?
It would be extremely interesting and helpful to the House if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a former Law Officer, would give his views on how, as a matter of practice, that could happen. How could somebody say that the Home Secretary had discriminated against him on grounds of colour, race or religion without the court wanting to find out the reasons for the decision?
It might be possible on occasions to tackle such cases without penetrating into the real arguments, but surely that must be exceptional. The norm would be for the court to question the reason for the refusal.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that intervention, but he must not make my speech for me. I am coming to the point that he made. We have now achieved one thing in this debate. The drafting argument has gone.

Mr. Raison: No.

Mr. Archer: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he does not want the subsection to be subject to review and then object that the drafting is defective.

Mr. Raison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can do better than that. I said that there were two things wrong. The first, to which I attach less importance, concerns technicalities; and the second, to which I attach greater importance, concerns how the procedure would operate. I do not abandon the first point. It is significant, but the second issue is more significant and that is where I prefer to put the substance of my argument—perhaps because I can argue and grasp it more persuasively. There are two arguments, and the second is more important.

Mr. Archer: The Minister of State has now made the same point four times. I am seized of it and I promise to come to it in due course, but perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech in my own way. It still seems to me that if the Minister is saying that he does not want a review, it is irrelevant for him to say that the drafting does not achieve one.
I should like to make one other point before coming to the Minister of State's argument. I wish that the Government would be consistent. Before the debate began I thought that I knew what the Government's case was. I thought that the Lord Advocate had argued in another place that the words were not necessary—that, even without the words in the amendment, it would be possible for the courts to review the discretion on the ground that it did not comply with subsection (1).
However, it transpires that if that was what the Lord Advocate argued, it was not what the Government wanted to achieve. They do not want courts to be able to review the discretion. At various stages in our debates the Government have said not only things that are not necessarily the same, but things that are inconsistent. They now say that it can all be left to questions and debates in the House.
We discussed that matter at earlier stages of the Bill. It is difficult publicly to give parliamentary answers and to have debates about matters relating specifically to the position of individuals. They may be confidential or it may be unfair to say certain things about individuals. In addition, there is no prospect of cross-examination in the House. Law Officers in particular know that the House is not the best forum for such an exercise.
The Minister of State said that we could leave matters to the Parliamentary Commissioner. But he has to be satisfied that there is maladministration, which has a highly technical meaning, and that process would be no substitute for review in the courts.
We debated these matters at length on 2 June. We discussed in general whether it was right that the Secretary of State's discretion involving matters of great importance to individuals should be beyond challenge—whether the Secretary of State should virtually be beyond the challenge of any tribunal except those in the hereafter. I do not propose to repeat the arguments deployed on that occasion, but again I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that what is proposed is contrary


to the spirit of Conservatism, as I tried to show on the previous occasion. The Minister of State may care to refer to that debate.
The Home Secretary rejected our arguments on that occasion and said that it was not possible to lay down criteria for the exercise of discretion which could be tested on appeal. Whatever the merits of that argument in that debate, it cannot be applied to the subject of this debate because, if subsection (1) has any purpose, it is precisely to lay down criteria for the guidance of the Secretary of State.
I come to the argument used time and time again by the Minister of State. He says that if we allow the courts to examine allegations that there has been an infringement of subsection (1) and that discretion has been used in a discriminatory way, we shall open up all the reasons that guided the Secretary of State to his decision. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, I am not sure why that would be so wicked or worrying.
There are many ways in which a court can investigate reasons without necessarily making them public to the whole world. They could be in the form of affidavits, which could be read quietly, not aloud, by the court. We have discussed that frequently in another context in recent months. If necessary, courts can conduct proceedings in camera. The only people whom one needs to trust are the judges, and I do not understand the difficulty about that.
The reasons that the Government give for a conscious decision to place subsection (1) beyond review are unconvincing. What is even more worrying is that it seems to be a habit of the Government to include in their Bills rights that appear impressive, but then to ensure that the rights cannot be enforced. In our debates on the Companies Bill in 1980 the Government introduced a new clause to the effect that company directors, in the performance of their functions, should have regard to the interests of their employees, but they then added a subsection which ensured that the employee should not have any right of action to enforce it.
I hope that the Minister of State will not repeat the same arguments in his reply. We are seized of them. But will he at least make clear what I think he was trying to make clear earlier—that the Government wish the discretion to be beyond challenge, even on the ground that it infringes the criteria which they have provided in subsection (1)? If so, will the Minister of State explain how it can serve to allay the fear of minority communities, how it can be other than a purely empty gesture, and how he can justify so empty a shell?

Mr. Marlow: If I understand the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) correctly—I apologise for not being present at the beginning of his speech—he was concerned about the potential denial of rights to people and that if those rights were denied, people would not have recourse to a court of law. As I also understand it, the clause concerns decisions involving the exercise of discretion. In this area we are not talking essentially about people's rights but, to an extent, about people's privileges. I believe that the grant of nationality, except in the majority of cut and dried cases that we have already discussed, is a great privilege and that the Government and the people of this country want the Government to hold that privilege very dear. 

As I understand it, the Government have been as fair as they can to everyone, particularly those with the right to British citizenship. Earlier today we discussed the giving of the right of British citizenship to those people who happened to have a British granny whose mother might have been a part-time charlady in an Athens canteen for the European Community. We cannot be any fairer than that. Not only are this Government fair and not only are any other Government likely to be fair, but we already have in this clause the statement that any discretion vested
shall be exercised without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by its exercise.
I am sure that any civil servant assisting my hon. Friend the Minister of State or his successors in the Home Office will be sure that the subsection is fairly and correctly applied. But woe betide any Government at any stage who try not to apply the subsection fairly. I should think it will be possible, by various means that seem to have become more common in this day and age, that a wrongful application of the subsection will be brought to the public's notice. I cannot see that happening, but if it did the public would get to know about it. Further, hon. Members would be involved. If a person had been discriminated against on those grounds, I am sure that an hon. Member would be given the facts and, in the way of hon. Members of this House, would pursue it with the utmost vigour to see justice and fair play.
All hon. Members should be concerned that if in the exercise of discretion—which, as I have said, is a privilege—people were allowed to pursue the matter through the courts, there would be those with a chip on their shoulder. There would be those with vexatious causes. There would be those who had been put up by troublemakers. There would be those who, knowing full well that the discretion had been properly exercised and knowing full well that the reasons for the proper exercise of that discretion were perhaps a matter for national security, would wish to pursue it through the courts to embarrass the Government. They would wish to pursue it through a trumped-up case of alleged discrimination on the ground of race, colour or religion.
I believe that the Bill as it is, without the amendment, is a fundamentally fair Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend and his successors, of whatever party—long may he reign, and I believe that his successors will be from our party anyhow—and their civil servants will see that this measure is properly and fairly applied. I believe that there is no cause for concern on this issue.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marlow: I am just about to sit down—I have one further point to make—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech.
Apart from the fundamental issue of privilege in taking a matter to court, if the amendment, as so far put forward, is nonsense, and if it is ambiguous—and we have had two very distinguished hon. and learned Gentlemen putting forward different points of view—should we in this House put forward ambiguous legislation? Surely not. I believe that for those reasons the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The Soviet constitution has the most magnificent clauses in it. Anyone reading it would imagine that the Soviet Union was governed on the most enlightened democratic principles


But, of course, there is not much opportunity, when the principles in the constitution are not followed, for ordinary Soviet citizens to do anything about it.
As we look at the constitutions of other countries, we say to ourselves, "They do not have an independent judiciary, they do not have access to a free Parliament, and they have not independent media; therefore, what is written in their constitutions does not mean a thing." I am not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that what we have in Britain is something similar to the Soviet constitution, but there is a lesson to be drawn. It is that high-sounding phrases—verbiage, which comes cheap—written into legislation, without the possibility of redress in the courts, will not be of very much use.
Although it is not the case at the moment, there could come a time when clause 43(1) could almost be an engine of oppression, in the sense that, in dealing with cases alleged discrimination, the authorities could say, "You are entirely wrong to accuse us of discrimination, because all our decisions are governed by clause 43(1), which says clearly that we never do that sort of thing. All our decisions are fair and just. You are entirely wrong, therefore, in making any contrary allegation."
The way to deal with that possibility—however far in the future it might be—is to provide teeth for the high-sounding phrases. What the Lords have sought to do—as was sought to be done in this House at an earlier stage—is to provide teeth for the high-sounding phrases. Those high-sounding phrases did not come from the Opposition; they came from the Government. The Government put subsection (1) into the Bill.
The argument throughout has been that since the protection of the citizen against an accumulation of power by the Executive must lie with the judiciary as well as with the legislature and the media, it is unfortunate that the judiciary—one of the three pillars on which our freedoms rest—is excluded from the ability to review decisions reached by the Executive under the measure.
9 pm
The Bill is now to contain a clause stating that rights which are affected by the operation of the Bill shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts—but discretion, no. The principal argument that is being used is that embarrassment could be caused if people took the Government to court on an allegation that there had been an improper exercise of discretion due to prejudice about race, colour or religion, and that that would force the Government into an embarrassing situation and improper disclosures.
Let us consider the realities. As a matter of habit, the Government reveal the ground of refusal when it amounts to a person not having lived here for five years. As a matter of practice, the Government reveal the ground for refusal when it is based on the failure of an applicant to pass the language test. All that remains is good character and security. The idea that a mole who applies for British citizenship and is refused is not alerted because he is not told the reason is fanciful. If a dangerous spy applied for British nationality and were refused without reason presumably he would know the reason, if he had been here five years and he had passed the language test. What would be left? If he had not been before the courts and was a person of good character, he would be left with only one inference, and that is that the Government were on to him and suspected him of being a spy. There would be no need

for him to go to the courts. Why should he do that? That would certainly blow his cover, because he would be closely examined. The Government would then fear that the man suspected that they knew that he was a spy and their reasons for suspecting him.
It would have been open to the Government to exclude security from the provisions. The Government might have received sympathy if they said that if there were certificates for security there would be no need to go into the details behind the certificate. Of course the applicant would know that security was involved. A person who was a genuine danger to security would be caught by such a certificate, and probably he would not proceed with an application to the courts in any event. There would be no point in his doing so if he knew that he were a genuine security risk, because the certificate would stop him dead.
There is another protection, and that is if the Government made it clear—as might be the case with the present drafting—that the burden of proof lay on the applicant to prove that prejudice had been exercised and therefore an improper exercise of discretion. If the applicant could not make a prima facie case, in the first place, a judge might say at the end of the plaintiff's case "This case fails, and therefore I do not need to call the Government lawyers to give an answer."

Anyone who went to a lawyer who dealt with a large number of cases involving nationality would know that either good character or security were the reasons for refusal, because his lawyer would be able to say, "They have not said that it is a time factor or that there is a language problem." In cases where a case involved a person of bad character who had been before the courts, how would the Government be harmed, in an action brought by such a person, if they produced in private proceedings a list of his convictions? Moreover, the moment the Government did so, the man himself would know that it was pointless to proceed on a different ground, namely, that the refusal had been based on an improper exercise of discretion about race, colour or religion.
Altogether, therefore, I am not satisfied that the Government are acting reasonably having regard to their own introduction of the subsection. One can argue that there would be a recourse to the courts by persons who did not want to be removed from this country and wanted extra delay, but that does not apply to nationality. A person who applies for nationality has first to show ordinary residence. Therefore, no application to the courts here could be introduced as a means of delaying removal from this country, as a mere delaying tactic, because such a person would have a right to residence in the first place before he could go on to apply for citizenship.
Since the Government have addressed this matter, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has throughout given it a very warm welcome. I have taken the view that overall and in present circumstances it is better to have it in the Bill as a matter of reassurance than not to have it included, despite the fact that it is not backed by any sanction such as a right to approach the judiciary for review. None the less, one has seen an attempt made in the House of Lords to make sure that this preliminary subsection is not meaningless, since the declaration to be given is unenforceable anywhere. The Government immediately react strongly and say that they will vote against the amendment made by the House of Lords. 


I should have hoped that the Government would not do that but would accept the Lords amendment as they have accepted a number of other amendments by the Lords. The Government have thought again about a number of proposals which they vehemently opposed in Committee and on Report. The Minister has stated repeatedly that one needs time to think. The fact that one refuses vehemently and adamantly does not mean that one was right. No, it meant that the Government needed months and months to think. Eventually, the Government concluded, after all, that the language test for spouses was not necessary, and therefore they have agreed to the Lords amendment in that respect, which I find very satisfactory.
Therefore, when the Minister tells us that we on the Opposition Benches are wrong about our insistence, why should we accept his refusal and his reasons when, after a time, he has backtracked on so many arguments and conceded that he was wrong? All that one needs to do is to repeat the arguments for long enough and the Government, after many refusals, will accept that they were wrong and accept the Lords amendment. Only on this matter do the Government dig in their heels, saying, "No, we cannot have it." After what the Minister has been saying about other matters, he should follow his reasoning. At a very late stage it is possible to change one's mind and suddenly to see the merits of an argument, particularly if they have been advanced in the House of Lords.
It has been a most humiliating experience for Members of the House of Commons to see the alacrity with which the Government have accepted arguments in the House of Lords—glad though I am that they have accepted them—when similar arguments put forward repeatedly by assorted Opposition Members have been rejected out of hand throughout the proceedings in this House. It seems that the Government favour ermine and arguments advanced under robes of ermine and coronets. Apparently those views are taken into account to a far greater degree than are the views of the Members of the House of Commons.
At this late stage, I hope that the Government can be persuaded to think again. I share the view that there will be few applications to the courts under clause 43(1). It is not easy to foresee circumstances in which there could be a mass of applications. The Government should think again.

Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) is right. From the legal point of view, there is no reason why the Lords amendment should not remain. However, there is another reason that is, perhaps, more important that that. It is atmospheric.
Leicester has a large Asian community that is, on the whole, happily integrated. In cities such as Leicester it is correctly believed that the Bill is basically divisive, racist and contrary to the community's interest. They believe that it may well lead to the exercise of discretion with regard to race, colour and religion.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that the Bill was fundamentally fair. We on this side of the House regard it as an unfair Bill that will lead to ill feeling and that is fundamentally evil in its effect, not least on the atmosphere in which people live

and work as citizens in the same country. Indeed, the children of immigrants cease to be immigrants and are citizens of this country, with the same rights as any others.
A clause has been inserted in the Bill and its intention is to give some reassurance. It states that the discretion that is vested not only in the Secretary of State but also in a governor, or lieutenant-governor
shall be exercised without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by its exercise.
The provision was inserted by a Secretary of State whom we all recognise to be someone who would not exercise his discretion willingly or knowingly in a way contrary to the decencies of normal parliamentary procedure and rights. However, one would not necessarily have such confidence in a governor or lieutenant-governor. Nor would one necessarily have such confidence in a future Home Secretary. We are determined to repeal the Bill at the first opportunity. Meanwhile, we could not be sure that a governor, lieutenant-governor or different Home Secretary would not take a different approach from that of the present Secretary of State. We were pleased when the Lords inserted an amendment to the effect that the absolute discretion vested in the Secretary of State could involve having regard to security and to a person's character, but not to a person's race, colour or religion.
If amended, the clause would state:
Subject to subsection (1) herein,
in other words, to the requirement to exercise the discretion without regard to the race, colour or religion of anyone affected by the provision's exercise—
the Secretary of State, a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor, as the case may be, shall not be required to assign any reason
In other words, he is bound to have regard to subsection (1) and is accountable if he does not. I accepted the Minister's reasoning when he said that this might lead to a possible challenge in the courts. That is right.
9.15 pm
I have a healthy regard for the right of appeal. It is a basic right. I have a deep dislike of any unfettered discretion in anybody's hands which is not subject to the right of the courts to review it. Ministers are not elected as Ministers but appointed, and on occasion they are liable to be changed sometimes to the public benefit but sometimes for reasons which are not necessarily connected with that. If there must be a discretion, for security or personal reasons, and we are to have trust in the exercise of it by Ministers, that discretion must be subject to appeal in the courts in all cases. I know that such a right does not exist under the Bill. I know that it is too late, but I believe that it is a mistake that a person should not be entitled to go to a court, even if it has to sit in camera because of a security aspect. Courts frequently sit privately for that reason. The exercise of the court's discretion is itself subject to the right of appeal to other courts in most cases.
Since there is no right of appeal, there is still a possibility, in cases which affect race, colour or religion, of the Minister regarding himself as having not an absolute discretion but a discretion which is subject to limitation. I respect the Minister's view that if a discretion is subject to limitation the citizen is given the right to say to the court, "The Minister has acted beyond his powers. He has not acted in accordance with the discretion vested in him by Parliament. Indeed, he has acted contrary to that discretion, and therefore he should be taken to account." That is the essence of the individual's democratic freedom.


The Minister says that that is not necessary because a person can already appeal to his Member of Parliament. I pay tribute to the Minister for the occasions when he has helped in individual cases which I have brought to his attention. In other cases I protested because he did not act. But, when the Minister has been convinced of the justice of a case, he has intervened and exercised his discretion.
I have always felt uncomfortable that there should be no right of appeal, other than in certain cases, to tribunals. I hope that, if there were a right of appeal against him, the Minister would feel no more fettered than does a High Court judge. High Court judges do not enjoy being appealed against, particularly if the appeal succeeds. I suggested to a High Court judge the other day that he had been appealed against successfully rather often lately. He said, "Yes. The Court of Appeal is frequently wrong." A judge might be wrong and a Minister might be wrong but the judge has no absolute right. His decisions are open to review. It is wrong that a Minister should have an unfettered liberty to decide on such a crucial issue as whether a person shall be allowed to live in a country, without at least some fetter on that power.
The total fetter for which some of us wish?the right of appeal to the courts—does not exist in the Bill. Instead the Lords have inserted a modified fetter which would lead in some cases, although not many, to people saying, "The Minister has not complied with his duties under clause 43(1)."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would clarify one matter. I have listened to him with great care. As I understand it, the amendment does not say that the Minister should state at any stage that he has had regard to the criteria in clause 43(1). If that is right and he is not obliged to state whether he has had regard to those criteria, I do not understand how the amendment gives rise to a greater ability to challenge decisions in the courts.

Mr. Janner: I think that the hon. Gentleman had the misfortune of not being in the Chamber when the Minister opened the debate.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: That is why I am asking for clarification.

Mr. Janner: I am not happy about trying to translate the Minister's objections as he may disapprove of my interpretation. However, I understood the Minister to say that once there was a right to challenge his discretion, the right would be exercised in the courts. He added that the courts would have to ask the person concerned, "Why do you say this?". He would reply, "It is on the ground of race, colour or religion." The court would then ask the Minister, "Is that right or is it wrong?; If it is not right, what is your reason?" In other words, the procedure would lead, by an indirect route, to the Minister having to explain why he refused to exercise his discretion. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the Minister's argument, I shall gladly resume my place while he intervenes.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Janner: If the Minister is wrong, it will not be for the first time. On this occasion I am trying merely to deal with the objections that the Minister has raised. It seems that there are only two possibilities. Either the Minister is wrong, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in which case the

worries that he raises are incorrect and without foundation, and the amendment should be allowed, or the Minister is right, in which case I rejoice, as those who believe that a discriminatory decision has been made will have a right to go to the courts. I am satisfied to rest my case on the basis that the amendment will do good and will emphasise that it is not the intention of the House that there should be any refusal of an application without regard to the just criteria which have been embedded in the clause.
I invite the House to consider the effect of not accepting the amendment. Would that have much the same impact on the atmosphere as the Bill itself? Would it be regarded by those who are, not surprisingly, sensitive to the effect of the Bill as reflecting an intention on the Government's part to reject any fetter and to reject even that which has been inserted by those in another place, which would in my view and the Minister's give those concerned a limited right to go to the courts? In my view and the Minister's it would allow people to challenge the Minister's reasons and at least the Minister would be required to give them. That would allow the courts to say, "We shall sit in camera" or allow the Minister to use his ordinary powers in law to say, "These are matters which in the public interest cannot be revealed".
If I am wrong, as the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to suggest, there is no ground for the Government's opposition to the amendment. In the circumstances I hope that it will be allowed to remain in the Bill, where it belongs.

Mr. Alton: I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I agree with much of his case. I agree also with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons).
It seems that two debates have been taking place simultaneously. One debate concerns the technical linkage of subsections (1) and (2) and the other appears to concern one's attitude and approach to race relations and whether one wants to make a reality of the statement contained in subsection (1).
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) put it well when he said that we were discussing empty words. I suspect that without subsection (2) and the linkage to the right of appeal that is all that they will be. They will be merely a gesture and a cosmetic approach without giving any reality to the fears that many within minority groups, especially within the black community, have about the implementation of this proposed legislation.
In many ways, the decision by the Government to write into the Bill
Any discretion vested by or under this Act in the Secretary of State … shall be exercised without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by its exercise
was an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The legislation is regarded by many throughout the country as intrinsically wrong. The suspicion lingers that it is a racialist piece of legislation. In an attempt to respond to those fears, the Government decided to try to allay them by writing in those words at the beginning of the clause. It was suggested by Lord Elwyn-Jones in another place that, by linking that to the right of appeal, teeth would be provided for the statement that the legislation was not discriminatory and that it did not work against people on the basis of their race, colour or religion. 


The other debate that has been going on in the Chamber has been about Britain being a multi-racial society. Some hon. Members wish that in some ways this country were not a multi-racial society. I believe that it is and that we can be proud that, regardless of the colour of their skin or of their background, people have equality of opportunity. Many people in Britain are committed to the cause of integration. It is a tragedy that at this sensitive moment in race relations this legislation has sullied the approach to race relations in Britain.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that some people would try to bring the Government into disrepute by making out bogus cases, saying that they had been discriminated against. Such people might choose to go to courts of law if they felt that the new British Nationality Act had worked against their interests. They should have that right of appeal; they should have that chance to go to court. If those people genuinely believe that the legislation has worked against them, they should be able to appeal to someone other than their Member of Parliament.
The Minister said that people had the right to go to their Member of Parliament, but it should be enshrined in law and above the Member of Parliament. It is true that the Minister is helpful to hon. Members who approach him with cases concerning immigration?I have always found him to be helpful?even to the point of meeting hon. Members to discuss the details of cases. But it should not be a question of the Member of Parliament having to go to the Minister. Surely it should be the right of the appellant to take his case to a court of law and to say that he feels that he has been unfairly discriminated against.
That will not lead to people queuing at our courts, because, if the legislation works in the way in which the Minister has assured us it will, there should be no fears. Few people will harbour a grievance or be prejudiced. There will not be vexatious cases for the sake of having vexatious cases. If the legislation works as it should, we shall not have hundreds of people queuing up at the courts. However, many people who believe that there are racial undertones in the legislation will have their fears allayed if they believe that they have that right of appeal.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about appeals and also about appeals to Ministers. He must know that in immigration matters there are extensive appeal rights. He has also probably deduced that, despite those extensive appeal rights, there are still large numbers of appeals to Ministers by Members of Parliament. That shows that the belief that the introduction of an appeal right in this area would solve all our problems is a fallacy. Members of Parliament are able to appeal on naturalisation cases in exactly the same way as on immigration cases. There is an appeals system in the realm of immigration, but, judging by the reaction of hon. Members, it does not seem to be the panacea implied by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alton: I do not believe that it is any kind of panacea. I remember the words of the Minister of State, shortly into the life of this Parliament. Speaking at a meeting outside the House, he said that he felt that the whole procedure whereby Members of Parliament could go to Ministers should be abandoned.

Mr. Raison: Rubbish.

Mr. Alton: I give way to the Minister.

Mr. Raison: That is a total and utter travesty of anything that I have ever said.

Mr. Alton: I am sorry if I have misrepresented the Minister, but I believe that is what he said. Indeed, it is implicit in what he argued earlier—that the whole appeals procedure is such that it does not satisfy Members of Parliament, who frequently have come to Ministers. He is presumably arguing that that procedure is cumbersome and ought to be changed.
I draw the Minister's attention to the words of his noble Friend the Lord Advocate, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was asked this very question in another place. In reply to a question about the right of appeal, his answer was that to some extent it must depend upon the circumstances. The appellant should have the right to know clearly what those circumstances are. That, again, is a reason for tying subsection (2) to subsection (1). People will then have an automatic right to appeal if they feel that the legislation is working against them. I also believe that the contradictions which will be implicit in the legislation, if it is passed in its present form, will lead to expensive and prolonged litigation and confusion in the courts.
As the Lord Advocate said, I do not believe that we can contemplate that a Secretary of State, governor or lieutenant-governor vested with discretion would act in breach of subsection (1). It seems to me that the present Home Secretary and, indeed, the Minister of State are unlikely to act in breach of the legislation. However, as others have pointed out today, legislation should not be based on the nature of individuals. Somebody might in future occupy a ministerial position and he might not exercise the kind of discretion that one would expect from the present Home Secretary or the Minister of State. I should therefore prefer the right of an individual to know precisely where he stands vis-a-vis the law to be clearly spelt out in the legislation.
The Minister of State talked about obscurity and uncertainty in the legislation. That is precisely what I believe he has achieved by refusing to tie subsection (2) to subsection (1). If the Minister and the Government mean what they say about there being no discrimination on the basis of race, colour or religion, it would have been more straightforward for that to be tied clearly to the right of appeal.
I hope, therefore, that, even at this late hour, the Minister will think again, listen to the objections that have been raised, not just here but in another place, and accept that, if the Bill is enacted as at present proposed, it will be one more piece of divisive legislation which will place fear in the hearts of many people in the minorities which form part of the complex chemistry that makes Britain the integrated community of which we are all proud.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have listened with great interest to the Opposition speeches. Although I am in agreement with the general propositions put forward, I did not find in any of them a reason to support Lords amendment No. 61. I agree with hon. Members about the undesirability of extending the discretionary powers of Ministers. As a general proposition, I believe that the discretionary powers of Ministers should as far as possible be subject to judicial


review, and I am uneasy when I find that under clause 43 the power of review is expressly excluded. That is not a process that I like or approve of.
Having said that, however, I do not believe that the desirable objective of subjecting the Ministerial discretion to judicial review will be achieved by Lords amendment No. 61 or indeed by Lords amendment No. 62, which we shall shortly reach.
Lords amendment No. 61 provides only that the exercise of the power under subsection (2) should be subject to the overriding criteria set out in subsection (1). There is no coexisting power to require the Minister or official to state that he has had regard to the criteria contained in subsection (1), or to set out any of the considerations or criteria to which he has had regard. That being so, simply to accept Lords amendment No. 61 will not enlarge the grounds of appeal. It will not enable any dissatisfied applicant to appeal against a decision, because, unless the statute requires that the Minister state his reasons and goes on to say that those reasons will automatically be the subject of judicial review, there is nothing in the amendment that extends the grounds of appeal.
Let me make this point in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). Although I am in favour of judicial review, it will not be achieved by anything hitherto contemplated either in this place or in another place. Simply to preserve the existing powers of judicial review, as is contemplated by Lords amendment No. 62, serves no purpose at all. The courts can review a judicial decision only if it can be shown that that decision is, for example, ultra vires or contrary to natural justice, or that the Minister has had regard to considerations to which he should not have had regard. Rarely will that be the case.
If we really want to subject decisions of this kind to judicial review, we must go beyond the scope of administrative law as we now understand it and say not that an applicant has a right to challenge the decision within the existing criteria but rather that the High Court should have the right to adjudicate on the merits de novo. I personally think that there is a lot to be said for that, because I do not like discretionary powers, nor do I like Ministers to be possessed of discretionary powers. Wherever possible, I should like some independent tribunal, such as the courts, to have the right to inquire into and adjudicate upon such matters. But that can be done only if this House is bold about it and says that discretionary decisions of this kind may be inquired into de novo and decided upon their merits. That will not be achieved either by Lords amendment No. 61 or by Lords amendment No. 62.

Mr. Archer: I do not wish to discourage the hon. Gentleman from urging a wider right of appeal. However, what is his comment on the Lord Advocate's argument that the exercise of a discretion which infringed subsection (l ) would not be a discretion within the powers granted by the Bill?

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he has failed to grasp the point of the argument. As baldly stated, that proposition is correct. If the Minister failed altogether to have regard to the criteria set out in subsection (1), he might well be acting ultra vires and the order he issued could be quashed.

However, there is nothing in Lords amendments Nos. 61 and 62 that requires the Minister or the other official to state his reasons. In the absence of a requirement obliging the Minister or other official to state those reasons, which goes on to say, "and furthermore he shall set out the considerations upon which he comes to his conclusions", there is no way in which one can argue that the decision is ultra vires.
Simply to build in a requirement that the Minister shall have regard to subsection (1) carries the case no further at all. We must go on to say, "and furthermore he shall state his reasons and set out the considerations upon which those reasons are founded". If we say that, the decision could be challenged in the courts on the ground that it was ultra vires or a breach of natural justice. But unless we do so, we do not enlarge the grounds for appeal at all. That is the objection. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) nods in agreement.
That is the objection to Lords amendment No. 61. It is mere verbiage. It does not carry the case any further forward, and for that reason the House should not be troubled with it. If we were bold and robust about it, that is another matter, and I would be sympathetic. But the truth is that we are wasting our time discussing Lords amendment No. 61.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), may I say that we hope to start the reply at 9.45 pm? I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman, but those are the circumstances.

Mr. Jim Marshall: You may be sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have only six minutes, but I am sure that your concern is not shared by the House generally.
I do not intend to follow the tortuous road outlined by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). His speech was undoubtedly of great relevance to the legalistic interpretation of the amendment but it had little in common with the spirit that underlies clause 43(1). The best compliment that I can pay to the hon. Gentleman is that he shows all the best qualities of the son of a Lord Chancellor.
When the Minister opened the debate he introduced a red herring by bringing forward arguments that we had advanced in the House and in Committee concerning an objective appeal system against decisions made by the Secretary of State on the grant or refusal of naturalisation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was right. Although it is not pertinent to the discussion today, when we have the opportunity—as we shall after the next general—election?to introduce our own nationality legislation, not only shall we remove the blatant racial discrimination inherent in the legislation but we shall give everyone the right to appeal against any decision of the Home Secretary exercised in his discretion. It is important to make the Labour Party's position clear.
The second and main point is that it is ironic in the last 19 minutes of debate on British nationality legislation that we should be dealing with the racial discrimination, which underpins the basic assumptions of the legislation. It is all very well for the Minister and his colleagues to say, "We introduced that part of the Bill somewhat belatedly to show that we hold dear to our hearts a multi-racial society." That belies what has happened in Britain since the legislation was introduced. Every group concerned with good race


relations and the welfare of immigrants has attacked the legislation as racist. If we look at the way in which the legislation treats people who will become British overseas citizens, or at the mean-spirited way in which it will affect the few hundreds of children born in this country after its commencement—the children of students and people here on short-term work permits?we see that it is blatantly discriminatory.
To assuage his Tory conscience and to appease some of the immigrants' fears the Minister has introduced into clause 43(1) a declaratory provision that means nothing and does nothing to remove the basic discrimination. The words mean nothing and will not give immigrants who fall within the three headings in clause 43(1) the right of appeal to the courts.
The Minister's reasons are somewhat strange. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) highlighted the State security aspect. The mind boggles at the idea that a Russian or Chinese spy would apply for naturalisation, unless he were a double spy acting on behalf of the Home Office or Foreign Office and it wished to protect him.
Already under our immigration laws people can be prevented from entering the country if it is felt that their admission is not conducive to the public good. The Government already have those draconian powers. They could be maintained, but with an objective appeals system.
The clause will do nothing to remove the basic racial discrimination inherent in the legislation.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) urged us, if we wished to fetter the Home Secretary's discretion—a view with which he several times said he had sympathy—to be bold and robust in the promotion of amendments that did exactly that. I only wish that he had been sufficiently bold and robust and followed us into the Lobby on Report for that purpose. However, I put that inconsistency aside; I wish to deal with a different one.
The hon. Members for Grantham and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who I regret is not now here, made lawyers' points. I do not say that critically. With their experience they believe that incorporating the amendment and linking the two subsections would have virtually no judicial effect?the appellant to whose aid we wish to come would have no greater right to appeal as a result of what their Lordships propose than is already inherent in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Grantham said that he had listened to our side of the debate carefully. Had he listened to his own side with equal care he would have heard the Minister argue against the proposal for quite different reasons. His objection was not that it would have no effect but that it would have one that was administratively unacceptable or inconvenient.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister is right.

Mr. Hattersley: I take it that that is an hereditary view. The hon. Gentleman may hear the Minister of State, when I sit down in three minutes, repeat what I told the House two hours ago. Fractious persons would appeal and apparently get into court with such devastating effect on the Government that they might be forced to give the

reasons for refusing naturalisation or citizenship, reasons altogether unrelated to the race or religion of the applicant and perhaps concerned with security. However, the Minister of State's view throughout his previous speech was that those unacceptable practices would flow from linking subsections (1) and (2).
My quarrel is essentially with the Minister and not with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister cannot argue or appear to argue simultaneously that linking the two subsections has no force in law and that it would have unacceptable consequences in requiring the Home Secretary to reveal his discretion. In the 10 minutes that remain, I hope that the Minister will tell us which is the principal objection.
Indeed, I hope that the Minister will do something more specific which will be enormously to the benefit of the House. As I understand our procedures, some of us are required to move to a different place if the Government will prevails and form ourselves into a Reasons Committee to stipulate why the House disagrees with the Lords. I am assured that the reason is always constructed in a single sentence or simple paragraph. Does the paragraph, which must now be at the Minister's disposal, state that the objection is that the provision has no force in law or that it has a force in law with which he disagrees? The Minister of State has given us both reasons tonight and the Lord Advocate gave both to the other place on 28 July.
In the dying minutes of the Bill perhaps we might have a firm answer to a firm question—a clear reply to a clear point. Some of us regard it not as wrong but as typical that, at the last moment of the Bill, the principles of which I will not dilate on any further, our final pathetic word is for the Minister to tell us what he means. Will he tell us the exact nature of his objections? Is it that it has no force in law, or is it that it has too much force in law? It cannot be both simultaneously.

Mr. Raison: Some hon. Members may recall that I promised the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) a reply to a point that he made about appeals in our first debate.
We cannot predict what view the courts will take should appeals come before them. One could argue that, if someone were registered when he had no entitlement, registration would be invalid. The arguments in favour of the satisfied formula were put to the Lords. The Lords were insistent that the applicant would be benefited rather than disadvantaged if the formula were removed. On balance, the Government would therefore recommend agreement with that view, although I agree that the matter is arguable.
I shall endeavour again, dealing with the subject of this debate, to put the reasons why we should reject the Lords amendment. First, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, I still believe strongly that we were right to include clause 43(1) in the Bill.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for stating that, whatever the outcome of this debate, he is grateful that we incorporated the subsection. I believe that we were right. It indicated our strong feeling that there must be no discrimination. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we stated at the time that it was fundamentally a declaratory provision.
I have attempted to stress that, quite apart from the question of appeal to the court, the Home Secretary could be taken before the Parliamentary Commissioner. Of


course, hon. Members can exercise some surveillance in the House and by approaching Ministers on questions of refusal.
I do not accept the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He said that maladministration has a highly technical meaning which implied that it could not be spread to this area. My advice is that if an applicant who is refused has grounds for believing that his refusal was on the basis of race, colour, or religion, there is no reason why he should not be able to pursue the course of maladministration However, that is not the main part of this debate. I still believe that the amendment of Lord Elwyn-Jones is not workable. I have said consistently throughout the debate that there are two reasons for my argument. However, I attach much more importance to one than to the other.
I have attempted to argue that the "linkage" as it now seems to be termed is basically not a workable system. There is a technical deficiency in the amendment. I have attempted to explain why that is. In addition, I have made it clear that the real objection is something else.
There are two alternative ways in which one can approach the issue of naturalisation. One is our traditional method of granting it at the discretion of the Home Secretary. I remind the House that this is a well-tried method which worked for a very long time. Some hon. Members appear to have approached the debate as if we were cooking up something new. However, we are continuing a system that stretches back into the last century. I hope that that is clearly understood.
I accept that there is an alternative way of approaching this matter. It would be to adopt clearly objective criteria where the reasons for refusal would have to be made clear. They would be open to challenge, probably in the courts, but perhaps in some other form of appeal system. I recognise that there are arguments for both approaches, and we have heard them in our debates and outside. We believe that on balance the traditional method is preferable, and both Houses have supported us in that view.
The amendment attempts something that is half way between the two. It is calculated to produce muddle. One way is discretion and the other is objective tests and appeal rights. Something between the two would be unworkable and to fall between the two would be a considerable mistake. Equally, trying to bring into the discretionary system an appeal element in respect of one aspect would be impracticable.
As I have said time and again—and this is the nub of my argument—in endeavouring to show that he had not discriminated on grounds of race, colour or religion, the


Home Secretary would always be liable to be required to disclose the grounds on which he had refused an application, and they could include security grounds.

Mr. Hattersley: Are we therefore to take it that, since the Minister of State is arguing that to pursue a case in this way might result in the Home Secretary's being forced to reveal that which it is best not to reveal, the linkage of the amendments would enable an appellant to get into court?

Mr. Raison: I have tried to say all along that there are technical deficiencies but that even if we put them to one side, which would be difficult at this stage of the Bill, there would still be what I see as the real objection of substance, namely, that if an appellant is able to take the Home Secretary to court to argue that he has been refused naturalisation on grounds of race, religion or colour, it is likely that, in order to establish whether that is so, all the circumstances would have to come out in open court. I do not say that that would always happen, but it is likely to happen rather often.
If both Houses had adopted the view that there should be objective criteria with appeals, that would be a tenable argument, but both Houses have rejected that view and have decided instead to uphold the traditional system by which the Home Secretary exercises his discretion. He cannot normally be challenged in the courts and does not have to give his reasons. The path followed by Lord Elwyn-Jones falls plumb between two stools and his approach is not workable.
The other idea floated by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, that cases should be heard in camera, is also not satisfactory. In principle, it is not desirable to have to hear cases in camera unless there are strong and powerful reasons for doing so. I do not want to swap adages with lawyers, but the adage that justice must be seen to be done obviously applies. To say that we should trust judges to look at matters in private does not confer any improvement in the status of appellants compared with the position that we set forth in our approach.
We have a well-tried system for naturalisation which has been in existence for a long time. Many members of the ethnic minorities and others have been through the system and I have never found that we are being submerged by complaints about the manner in which the traditional system has worked.
I do not believe that the case has been made out that the system is bad and it is perfectly evident to anyone who thinks about it that the amendment is thoroughly impractical. I therefore urge the House to reject it.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 203.

Division No. 315]


[10.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Aitken, Jonathan
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Alexander, Richard
Fox, Marcus


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Ancram, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Aspinwall, Jack
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodhew, Victor


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gow, Ian


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gray, Hamish


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, (Peter Portsm' N)



Blaker, Peter
Grist, Ian


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brinton, Tim
Hastings, Stephen


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Hawkins, Paul


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Barney


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heddle, John


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Barry


Bulmer, Esmond
Hill, James


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)



Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cockeram, Eric
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, John
Knox, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman


Corrie, John
Lang, Ian


Costain, Sir Albert
Latham, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan



Critchley, Julian
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Crouch, David
Lee, John


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Loveridge, John


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Macfarlane, Neil


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
McQuarrie, Albert


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Madel, David


Farr, John
Major, John


Fell, Anthony
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marlow, Antony


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mather, Carol


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.


Adams, Allen
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Alton, David
Cartwright, John


Anderson, Donald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cook, Robin F.


Beith, A. J.
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Berm, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Cryer, Bob



Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dalyell, Tam Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) Davidson, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P) Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Campbell, Ian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dewar, Donald


Canavan, Dennis
Dixon, Donald

Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Shersby, Michael


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Molyneaux, James
Speed, Keith


Monro, Sir Hector
Speller, Tony


Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Moore, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Morgan, Geraint
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sproat, lain


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Squire, Robin


Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Murphy, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Myles, David
Stanley, John


Neale, Gerrard
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Newton, Tony
Stokes, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tapsell, Peter


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Parris, Matthew
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thompson, Donald


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thornton, Malcolm


Pattie, Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Percival, Sir Ian
Trippier, David


Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pollock, Alexander
Viggers, Peter Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) Waddington, David


F'rentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wakeham, John


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, B. (Perth )


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Raison, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Fees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitney, Raymond


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Pitkind, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wolfson, Mark



Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Young, Sir George (Acton) Rossi, Hugh


Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Nick Budgen Scott, Nicholas

Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ronald


Dormand, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dubs, Alfred
Litherland, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Hugh


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ewing, Harry
McMahon, Andrew


Faulds, Andrew
McTaggart, Robert


Field, Frank
McWilliam, John


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth


Forrester, John
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maxton, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Graham, Ted
Mikardo, Ian


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton ltchen)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Newens, Stanley


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'11)
Palmer, Arthur


Home Robertson, John
Park, George


Homewood, William
Parker, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Parry, Robert


Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Janner, Hon Greville
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pitt, William


John, Brynmor
Race, Reg


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Radice, Giles Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) Richardson, Jo


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Ryman, John
Tilley, John


Sandelson, Neville
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Sever, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Sheerman, Barry
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkins, David


Short, Mrs Renee
Weetch, Ken


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Welsh, Michael


Silverman, Julius
White, Frank R.


Skinner, Dennis
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Whitehead, Phillip



Soley, Clive
Whitlock, William


Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Stoddart, David
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Woodall, Alec


Strang, Gavin
Woolmer, Kenneth


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton E) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. George Morton and


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Frank Haynes. Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any Government amendment to a Lords amendment, followed by the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords amendment, as amended. There are two such amendments, both to Lords amendment No. 89.
Lords amendments, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I now have to put the Question on all the remaining Lords amendments.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Finally, as the House has disagreed to one of the Lords amendments without offering an alternative, I have to put the Question on a motion made by the Minister to appoint a Committee to draw up the reasons for disagreeing to that amendment.
Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Gummer, Mr. Hattersley, Mr. Morton, Mr. Raison and Mr. Whitelaw; Three to be the quorum.—?[Mr. Raison.]
To withdraw immediately.
Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments, reported, and agreed to, to be communicated to the Lords.

Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980

(Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 (Postponement of Repeal) Order 1981 (S.L. 1981, No. 1358), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th September, be approved.
The House will recall that the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 was passed last October in order to deal with the effects of industrial action which prison officers were taking at that time. The main feature of that action was a refusal to receive inmates at any establishment with a population exceeding certified normal accommodation. Given the chronic situation of overcrowding, this threatened a breakdown of the criminal justice system. It meant that large numbers of prisoners had to be lodged outside the prisons, either in police cells or in other temporary accommodation.
Part I of the Act contained a number of temporary provisions which came into force forthwith and which, by virtue of section 8(1) of the Act, remained in force for an initial period of one month. At the end of that period, the industrial action was still continuing, and an order was made under section 8(2) of the Act to provide that all the provisions of part I should continue in force for a further period of one month—that is, up to 28 December 1980. Subsequently, two more continuance orders were made under section 8(2), although the latter of these, which expired on 28 February 1981, provided that only sections 1 and 2 should continue in force. No further continuance order was made, and accordingly none of the provisions of part I has been in force since last February, following the suspension of the industrial action by prison officers.
That action remains suspended only for the time being, pending the final resolution of the dispute.
The order before the House tonight does not bring any of the provisions of part I once more into force. What it does, as its title indicates, is to postpone their repeal, which would otherwise occur automatically on 28 October of this year. It enables them, as it were, to remain dormant, capable of being activated in the future but only by a further order approved by Parliament under a procedure laid down in the Act. This postponement of repeal is necessary because section 8(6) of the Act provides that part I of the Act is to be repealed 12 months after the date on which the Act was passed.
However, my right hon. Friend may, by order, postpone for up to 12 months at a time, if Parliament approves, the date from which the repeal provided for in subsection (6) is to have effect. There is no provision for selective extension. The whole of part I must be either repealed or retained. Accordingly, the order postpones the repeal of part I from 28 October 1981 to 28 October 1982.
I now turn to the detail of the provisions whose repeal is postponed by the order, asking the House as I do so to bear in mind that none of these provisions is once again brought into force by the order that we are now considering.
Section 1 permits the establishment of temporary prison accommodation in any place in England and Wales approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State, and provides that anyone charged with the task of running such

establishments shall have the powers and protection which prison officers have. The House will recall that it was under the provisions of this section that temporary accommodation was opened last winter at Frankland in County Durham and Rollestone Camp in Wiltshire. These were "approved places" under section 1.
Section 2 provides powers for a magistrates' court, having once remanded a defendant in custody, further to remand him without his being brought before the court. The House will recall that during the industrial action by prison officers last winter large numbers of persons remanded in custody were held in police cells up and down the country. Whilst normally remanded prisoners are accommodated quite near to the court which remands them, this was not always possible in the situation which obtained at that time and some had to be held at a considerable distance from the court. It would have been impossible for all prisoners held on remand in such circumstances to be produced in court every eight days. Section 2 therefore provides for a person who has once been remanded in custody in his presence to be further remanded in his absence unless the court has given a direction requiring him to be produced in court. However, the section also makes it clear that the magistrates' court retains its power to request a person remanded in custody to be brought before it at any time before the end of the period of remand. The section does not affect the requirement that there should be weekly remand hearings. No evidence came to our notice that the operation of section 2 worked to the disadvantage of defendants.

Mr. Bob Cryer: So far, the Minister has rightly outlined the provisions. However, does he intend to move on to the reasons for the deferment of repeal£ Surely he does not visualise that there will be any further dispute with the prison officers. That was the initial cause of the legislation. If the dispute is over and done with, it would breed greater confidence?from the point of view of both the prison officers and the Home Secretary?if the dispute were done away with completely. I hope that the Minister will go into the reasons for this provision.

Mr. Mayhew: I had looked forward to giving the reasons. However, I thought that it might be more logical to complete the description of the provisions before doing that.
The remaining sections of part I contain a variety of provisions which, when they are in force, enable the Secretary of State to take exceptional action to prevent a breakdown of the penal system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assured the House, when first seeking these powers, and I repeat the assurance now, that he would not use these powers unless it became absolutely necessary. Fortunately, it did not become necessary last winter to use any of the powers in sections 3, 4 or 5; and I certainly hope that it will not become necessary in the coming 12 months.
Section 3 contains power for the Secretary of State to release persons committed or remanded in custody, but only if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to make the best use of the places available for detention. Section 4 contains a power for the Secretary of State to remove a magistrates' court's power to commit persons to prison for failure to pay any sum of money or for want of sufficient distress to satisfy any sum of money. Section 5 contains a power for the Secretary of State to direct that


prisoners of a specified class shall be released up to six months earlier than they would otherwise be released. Here again, he may do so only if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to make the best use of the places available for detention.
I emphasise again that the order does not bring any of the provisions of part I into force. That would require a separate and further order under section 8(2), which would have to be either approved in draft by both Houses or, in case of emergency, approved within seven days of being made. My right hon. Friend has no reason at present to make any such order and no intention of doing so. Since the end of January this year, when the Prison Officers' Association suspended the industrial action that occasioned the Act—I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—the Home Office and the POA have been negotiating the terms of a new agreement to cover working arrangements in all the various types of prison department establishment. We are certainly hopeful that those negotiations will have a satisfactory outcome. On the other hand, it is only prudent to recognise that the POA's industrial action last winter was merely suspended—and remains merely suspended—pending the outcome of the negotiations on the new duty arrangements to which I have just referred.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North) rose—

Mr. Mayhew: This situation obtains at a time when the prison service is still under very severe strain from the pressures of overcrowding and decaying buildings. While I do not think it likely that there will be any recurrence of industrial action on a large scale or that difficulties will arise from any other cause with which the prison system will be unable to cope, it plainly remains a possibility. Plainly it is right, accordingly, that part I of the Act should not be repealed at this stage and that the powers that it confers should remain available as an insurance against the risk of a breakdown in the criminal justice system capable of being brought into operation if circumstances demand and Parliament so resolves.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister really saying that his desire to keep this part of the legislation is simply part of the Government's package of anti-union legislation? Is he saying that they wish to keep the legislation to strengthen their part in negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association?

Mr. Mayhew: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will not think that that is a particularly sound intervention. The reasons were made clear when the Act was introduced and when the powers were last renewed in January this year. Then the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that it was regrettable that it was still necessary for the powers to be renewed. It was made clear then that the legislation was necessary to guard against a possible breakdown in the criminal justice system occasioned by the prison officers' dispute. Almost everybody recognises that a duty of the Government is to ensure that the criminal justice system does not break down, for whatever reason. There is no question of a campaign against the unions, as the Prison Officers' Association would concede immediately. We are engaged in an exercise to ensure that in an emergency the prison service is able to cope with the

consequences of further industrial action or of gross overcrowding in the prisons arising from that or some other reason.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What is the Minister's intention, if and when the dispute is settled? Will he give the House a guarantee that as soon as the prison officers call off their action, rather than merely suspending it, he will come to the House and repeal all this legislation?

Mr. Mayhew: The order is designed to postpone the repeal of the Act for the next 12 months.
Under the terms of section 8(7) of the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980, my right hon. Friend has made the order which is before the House to postpone until October next year the repeal of part I and section 8(1) to 8(5) of the Act.
By virtue of section 8(8) of the Act, the order will cease to have effect 40 sitting days after the date on which it was made unless before the expiry of that period the order has been approved by resolution of this House and another place.
I hope that it will not be necessary within the next 12 months to ask the House to approve the activation of any of the provisions in part I, either on account of renewed industrial action or as a result of other intolerable pressures on the penal system. I believe that it would be imprudent to allow part Ito be repealed now. I ask the House to agree that the order to postpone repeal be approved.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The Minister asks the House to agree that the Act should remain on the statute book for another year. I am wholly unconvinced by the Minister's justification for doing that. We believe that the Act should be repealed tonight. It now serves no useful purpose, as the Minister has admitted. It contains far-reaching provisions and powers which are objectionable and which represent a serious infringement of basic civil liberties—the rights of detained people.
Originally the Act was intended as an exceptional, emergency and temporary measure. If the circumstances arise again and similar provisions are required, the Government should come back with another Bill which can be passed if necessary in one day, as was this Act. That Bill can be considered by Parliament in the light of the special circumstances prevailing at that time if the need ever arises.
The Act was placed on the statute book to deal with an unprecedented crisis in the prison system caused by the prison officers' industrial action. The serious repercussions of the strike—the fact that it led to several thousand prisoners being held in police cells—meant that unprecedented measures had to be taken by the House. There was excessive pressure on the police and standards of security were falling.
The official Opposition did not oppose the Bill in Divisions in October 1980 because we appreciated the urgent need for its provisions to be available if required as long as the industrial dispute was in progress. When the Home Secretary spoke on Second Reading on 28 October 1980 he said that it was the industrial action that had been taken by the Prison Officers' Association that had made the Bill necessary. The same argument was advanced on successive occasions by Ministers when orders were renewed. 


Tonight we hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Act is being retained on the statute book for other possible "disruptions" within the prison service and because the prison population is getting out of hand. An extended use of the provisions in the Act is now being admitted which has never before been revealed when the measure has been discussed in previous debates. The argument previously has always been confined to the prison officers' dispute.
It is unnecessary to have the Act on the statute book now that the dispute has been suspended. The Home Secretary said on Second Reading that he would not seek to rush the then Bill through the House unless the circumstances demanded it. Today there are no special circumstances that demand that the legislation that is before the House be retained. The dispute has been suspended. We understand that Frankland prison and Rollestone camp are empty and not in use and that police cells are not in use for prisoners. There is no need for the Act.
Our original objections to the Bill were, to some extent, placated because the provisions were only temporary. Those words were even incorporated in the Bill's title. However, a year later we are being asked to extend temporary provisions which it is admitted are not in use and which the Minister hopes will never be used.
If it were said that the Act would help to reduce the prison population, that might be of some encouragement. On 20 October that population was 43,837. The Act had no effect on the numbers in prison since the suspension of the prison officers' dispute. Indeed, the prison population has increased. At the end of the strike there were 40,000 in prison and now there are 43,837. The retention of the Act on the statute book has not led to a decrease in that population. We should find the real reasons for it decreasing during the prison officers' dispute and learn some lessons from them.
The purpose of section 1 was to establish temporary additional accommodation. We are told that Frankland prison and the camp are not in use. Section 2 was intended to minimise the workload of those responsible for detaining committal and remand prisoners. That was at a time when prisoners were distributed in police cells throughout the country, but that is no longer so. Great anxiety was felt and is still felt by the Opposition about the repercussions of section 2. It contains unprecedented powers. It is wrong that it should be retained on the statute book for the convenience of the prison administration or that of the Home Office.
Section 2 could lead to remand prisoners losing their long-standing and automatic right to appear in court every eight days. They could remain in cells, unknown to the probation service, and without legal advice. The Law Society, the probation officers and the Howard League for Penal Reform are all strongly opposed to such a system which could remove a valuable safeguard. That section is the most unacceptable part of the Act. The fact that it is not now being used is no justification for keeping it. On the contrary, it is a reason for repealing it tonight.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 have never been used by the Government at any stage, so there is even less justification for asking Parliament to renew them, and for them to remain on the statute book for yet another year. Section 3 is a reserve power. It authorises the release of

unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners who courts have decided should be kept in custody, in order, as the Home Secretary said, to make the prison or police cell place available for a more dangerous prisoner. As that power has never been used during the last year, when does the Minister envisage its use in the future, and in what circumstances?
The Home Secretary justified section 3 on Second Reading on the grounds that he must have available to him the power, if necessary, to act in order to make the best use of places available for detention. With regard to section 3, he said:
I am putting forward proposals now—I have made clear that I do not like them—because I am forced to do so by the sort of industrial action taken by the prison officers…I am faced with a totally abnormal situation…I have to take whatever action is available to me to deal with an extreme position.—?[Official Report, 28 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 220–21.]
How can it now be justified to keep section 3 on the statute book when the Home Secretary does not like it and is not forced to keep it by any industrial action of the prison officers, when he is not faced with a completely abnormal situation, and does not have to deal with an extreme position? All the reasons which he gave for including the section in the first place are non-existent now. There is no justification for keeping it in the Act.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is it not true that another reason why it is wrong to keep an administrative rather than a judicial review of the situation in prisons is that the Government lose time and again in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on this issue—that there should be proper judicial review, and not administrative review? Yet the Government keep section 3, which goes against everything that they have signed in the European Court in Strasbourg.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure that the Minister can answer that point, which is good. We eagerly await his reply.
Section 4 restricts the powers of the courts to imprison for non-payment of money. The Opposition support an increase in the types of non-custodial offences and an increase in non-custodial sentences. Section 5 authorises the early release of prisoners. We support shorter sentences wherever possible and appropriate. Ironically, those two sections have not been used by the Government, who are always saying that they are reluctant to legislate for either of those things. The Opposition are always urging more non-custodial offences and an increase in non-custodial sentences and, where possible, shorter sentences, and every time we mention that, the Home Secretary or the Minister says that he has exhorted the courts to do that and would rather not put it on the statute book. Yet here it is on the statute book, and here is a Minister asking the House to keep it on the statute book for another year as a temporary provision.
Sections 4 and 5 are measures that we have been asking to be incorporated in legislation rather than relying on exhortations to the courts. But the legislation that we wish to see should not be included in a temporary provisions Act which was originally passed, hurriedly and in crisis, in one day and which is now being renewed late at night in an hour and a half. We want those measures to be introduced as permanent legislation and placed on the statute book after very careful consideration.
Parliament originally passed this legislation to respond to the specific crisis of the prison officers' dispute in a


specific way. There is no comparison between the situation now and that which existed a year ago. There is no need whatever for these unprecedented powers to remain on the statute book any longer.
If and when, regrettably, another crisis arises—I am referring to a prison officers' dispute and nothing else, because the Act was intended to deal with the repercussions of that and nothing else, although the Minister casually added a few other circumstances as he went along?the circumstances and needs at that time must be carefully considered. The circumstances may be utterly different from those a year ago. After careful consideration, a Bill appropriate to that situation can be introduced?if necessary, in one day and one night, as we did with the present Act.
There is, therefore, no justification for keeping these temporary provisions and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be voting tonight to repeal the Act.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: In opening, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State mentioned two emergency prison camps. There is a third, at Beckingham in my constituency. I shall say something about that camp in a moment. My constituency seems to be unfortunate, or perhaps fortunate, in these matters as we also have Morton Hall. As my hon. and learned Friend will know, the Home Office has already indicated that in respect of Morton Hall, which is a former borstal, there are plans for establishing an emergency prison. I shall therefore be asking my hon. and learned Friend to expand on the plans with regard to those two establishments.
In relation to Beckingham, I begin by congratulating the governor, and his staff, not merely on the kind of prison that he is operating but on the good relations that he has established with the local community. I had the opportunity to visit the prison and to attend a parish council meeting which the prison governor and his deputy also attended. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) wish to intervene? It seems that he wishes to go to sleep. I shall not stand in his way.

Mr. George Cunningham: Get to the order.

Mr. Hogg: I shall come to the order in a moment. I am talking about an emergency prison set up under the order. To suppose that it is not in order to talk about such an emergency prison is to misunderstand the procedure of the House.
I began by congratulating the governor and deputy governor of Beckingham prison, first on the kind of prison being established, and secondly, on the very good relations that have been established with the local community. I had the opportunity to attend a parish council meeting which the governor and deputy governor attended and at which the governor extended a full invitation to all the local residents to visit the prison. In company with many others, I visited the prison and I must tell the House that the kind of prison that the governor is operating is one which in all the circumstances is entirely satisfactory.
Having said that, however, I must ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he can tell us a little more about his plans in respect of Beckingham. I understand that there

are about 330 category C prisoners there, and that the future of the prison will be reconsidered in April 1982. Although I am in no way asking my hon. and learned Friend to disestablish the prison—far from it, as it has an important contribution to make in many ways—people in my constituency would like to know how long the prison is to remain at Beckingham. I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend could give some indication of the future of this camp.
That also goes for Morton Hall. That is a former borstal establishment, and the Home Office has already indicated an intention to use Morton Hall as an emergency prison. Indeed, it has invited certain people to serve on the board of visitors. From what my hon. and learned Friend said earlier, I visualise that, as prison over-crowding is decreasing, it may not be necessary to use the facilities at Morton Hall. However, my constituents would like some indication of the Home Office's plans for Morton Hall.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: They are going to send the hon. Gentleman there.

Mr. Hogg: No, but they might send the hon. Gentleman there. He is just the sort of category C person—on the whole harmless, although perhaps given to a little over-indulgence—for whom these kinds of prison are suited.
My point was that Morton Hall could be used for this kind of emergency prison, and it is right that my constituents should know whether the facilities are likely to be used. I should like some clarification on that point.
I turn to a more general topic, which will no doubt encourage the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Prisons such as Beckingham accommodate only category C prisoners. Apart from the fact that they are a bit cold and that there is not quite enough work for the prisoners to do, which is a definite drawback, they are an ideal way of accommodating category C prisoners. Although this Act will be repealed in time, I hope that the Home Office will give serious consideration to using facilities of this kind for the accommodation of category C prisoners.
They are more acceptable facilities than the secure prisons. Beckingham has only a perimeter fence. Much more freedom is involved in these prisons than in Pentonville or Wormwood Scrubs. It is a nicer place to be, and I have been in all of them—[Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) needed cheering up, so I placed an easy one which would get an easy and cheerful response. I always get easy and cheerful responses from the hon. Gentleman at this hour of the evening.
We must be serious about this. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you had to choose—I fancy that you will never have to make this choice?between Wormwood Scrubs and Beckingham, I recommend a small and comfortable berth in Beckingham rather than a small and uncomfortable berth in Wormwood Scrubs. The former may be cold, but altogether it is a great deal more decent.
I try to dress this up to amuse, but it is a serious point. We must provide custodial accommodation for category C prisoners. It is basically wrong to accommodate them in places such as Wormwood Scrubs, Pentonville or Lincoln for that matter. Whenever possible, it is much better to accommodate them in places such as Beckingham. 


I therefore hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think further about using existing army camps and the like for low-security prisoners. They do not really pose a threat to the local community and on the whole have a more tolerable existence. In addition, the whole system is much more acceptable and, incidentally, much less costly.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: A year ago, when this legislation was first before the House, the prison officers were entering the fourth week of their dispute for backdated continuous duty credits. A minority of us argued then that it would be far more appropriate if the Government were to refer the prison officers' claim to arbitration than to inflict wide-ranging powers and a major upheaval on the criminal justice and penal system. The Government and the majority of hon. Members did not take that advice. Looking back a year, when we see that the cost of the dispute to the Treasury was about £20 million and, had it been implemented in full, the cost of the arbitration award would have been only £10 million, it appears that we were not wrong and the Home Secretary was not right.
Again, in introducing the legislation Ministers made their distaste clear. They emphasised that it was justified only because of the dispute and the exceptional nature of the circumstances—because of a crisis, a word which was used frequently at the time. It was an unprecedented situation that called for unprecedented and crisis measures. It is, therefore, remarkable that a year later, when the dispute has ended, it is deemed necessary to prolong the distasteful powers and the Minister asks us to extend the legislation.
If there is a dispute or crisis, the Government should ask the House for emergency powers and the House should consider the request carefully. However, we are now asked to legislate temporary and emergency powers for a hypothetical situation. When the legislation came before the House it was necessary because of what was happening. That was the Government's only justification for it. Such justification no longer applies, so there is no defence that we have so far heard for the Government's position.
That fact becomes more apparent when we consider the legislation. For example, it overrides the normal rights of a defendant. Section 2 of the Act allows the courts to remand individuals in custody without a personal appearance in court. Many hon. Members criticised that position a year less a clay ago.
Many of us favour extending from eight to 21 days the period on remand in custody without an appearance in court. I make no excuse for that view. Indeed, the proposal is supported by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, of which I am chairman, and most recently by the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. However, we always make it clear that the extension of the remand period without a personal appearance from eight to 21 days must be conditional upon the consent of the offender and that he must be legally represented. Under the Act there is no requirement for consent and there does not have to be legal representation. Indeed, no time limit is imposed on the appearance in court of an offender.
In response to representations in the House during the passage of the Bill, the Home Secretary asked the courts

to ensure that defendants would be legally represented. On the whole, that has happened. However, according to a Home Office sample survey in December, about 7 per cent. of defendants were not legally represented and did not personally appear in court. It is extremely important for those people personally to have the right to exercise an argument in favour of bail in court. It is important in principle and in practice that each offender should be able to come to court to argue why he should not be remanded in custody.
The principle is long-established and prevents potential abuse or injustice. The practical case is also well known and important. If a defendant is held in custody, he may lose his job or accommodation. Custody may have a severe psychological and practical impact on a defendant's family life and friendships. He certainly cannot persist in finding witnesses, collecting evidence and seeing his lawyer, as he could if he were out on bail.
It is objectionable to override that right unless there are good and clear reasons for doing so. There may have been such reasons in October, but they certainly do not exist today. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House described the section as objectionable in October—in the middle of the prison officers' dispute. If it was objectionable then, it is even more objectionable now when there is no dispute.
Sections 3 to 5 provide the Home Secretary with powers that many of us on both sides have suggested. He has power to release certain non-violent offenders from prison and to restrict the power of courts to impose prison sentences on other categories, notably fine and maintenance defaulters.
We have asked for those powers to be enshrined in permanent legislation. Unfortunately, they have not been used, but I also object to their renewal. I expect the House to object to giving a Home Secretary the amount of executive discretion that is contained in those sections. If we are to have those powers, as I wish, they should be included in permanent, well-considered, coherent legislation. I and other hon. Members on both sides have put that to the Home Secretary, but both he and previous Labour Governments, who have a lamentable record on penal policy, have not heeded that advice.
No one has yet seen fit to resolve the crisis of numbers, which is the real crisis of the prison service, by enacting permanent legislation to reduce the prison population both by reducing prison sentences and by reducing the categories of offenders who can be committed to prison.
The case for permanent legislation, with the objective of reducing the lengths of sentences that can be imposed and restricting the categories of offenders who can be imprisoned, was clearly emphasised by the prison officers' dispute. In September last year, the prison population was 44,000. By January—in the middle of the dispute—it had fallen to 39,500.
As the Home Secretary told the Leicestershire magistrates on 12 February, that dramatic reduction in the prison population was achieved without any threat to public safety—an opinion which he reiterated in oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Yet by July at the end of the dispute the population was up to an unprecedented 45,500.
The Home Secretary pointed out to the Cumbria probation and after-care service only a few weeks ago that that level could not be sustained. Conditions for both staff and prisoners are intolerable. Those are the Home


Secretary's words, not mine, and he has repeated them up and down the country. That opinion was reiterated by the Under-Secretary, Lord Belstead, only a few days ago in a speech to the annual meeting of the board of prison visitors on 12 October. He said that the present situation was not sustainable and was temporary.
The Home Secretary has responded by opening two new prison camps and by recruiting extra staff, but if we are to deal with the crisis in our prisons we must do so by enacting the sort of legislation that successive reports from the House and individual Members have enjoined on successive Home Secretaries. The Home Secretary should have done that two years ago. He did not and he therefore has no justification for asking for a renewal of the Act.
One day less than a year after the legislation was introduced, it is reasonable to ask the Minister of State what steps the Home Secretary has taken in that time to overcome the fundamental industrial relations problems that led to last year's dispute. The problems were clearly recognised by the May committee, which said in its report more than two years ago:
One of the features of the present system is that, except in regard to arrangements for taking arbitrable matters to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, no guidelines exist for dealing with grievances and other matters which either staff or management would like to pursue.
The May committee went on to recommend that a procedural agreement should be negotiated for the prison service to include
a clear statement of what issues are being reserved for national resolution, the nature of negotiations at an establishment level, the time to be allowed at each stage,
and so on.
When I raised that matter on Second Reading last year, the then Minister of State replied:
We have taken the view that the first priority should be the development of a new attendance system, but we are certainly anxious to make progress towards a new general procedural agreement along the lines recommended by the May committee … The Prison Officers' Association has indicated that it wishes to take the initiative by putting forward proposals on that point. We are awaiting these proposals and we are not saying that that is something which should not be done.—?[Official Report, 28 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 320.]
What has been done since then to negotiate a procedural agreement for the prison service?
The problems of the prison service do not require a continuation of this legislation, which was unjustified a year ago, when the official Opposition should have voted against it, and when willingness by the Home Secretary to go to arbitration would have ended the dispute at considerably less cost than was involved and would not have required the enormous erosion, by precedent if nothing else, of the liberties that we have long enjoyed and respected.
We need permanent legislation substantially to reduce the prison population. That case has been made clearly anti loudly by hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. The case is clear, overwhelming and convincing. When will the Government introduce that legislation and stop messing around with this unnecessary legislation?

Mr. Edward Gardner: I found it difficult to follow some of the arguments that were relied upon by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) because it appeared that he assumed that the provisions of the 1980 Act can be used today. They cannot. They lie

dormant and will remain dormant until they are revived, if ever, unhappily, the need arises, by an order that will have to be put before the House.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that in her view the 1980 Act now had no useful purpose and was, if I recollect her words correctly, "wholly unnecessary". To test the validity of her argument, one must look back briefly at the reasons why the 1980 Act came into being. We all remember vividly the coincidence of circumstances that brought a new threat of breakdown to our prison system. There was severe overcrowding in our prisons and an industrial dispute by the Prison Officers' Association over payment for certain meal breaks. The hon. Member for Ormskirk told the House that the dispute had ended. I pray that he is right, but the House will remember that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said, the dispute was not brought to an end by any firm and final agreement but was suspended. We hope that agreement will be reached and that we shall soon be able to say that we have heard the last of that dispute.
Although for the moment there is, happily, no need for the application of the powers in the 1980 Act, who can say that similar circumstances may not arise in the future?

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman join my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in asking the Minister to seek to repeal the Act when the dispute is finally settled?

Mr. Gardner: If the circumstances of an industrial dispute were the only potential additional threat or ingredient that could be added, I would willingly support that request. One does not want to speculate, because there is no real profit in that, but, without using one's imagination very actively, one can envisage a number of other circumstances which could arise.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: What are they?

Mr. Gardner: I shall not speculate. I am sure that there is no one in this House who would have the least difficulty in imagining a number of other circumstances.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if that is what the legislation was for it should have been permanent legislation and should have gone through the normal scrutiny in this House? The whole excuse for the legislation was that it was temporary, to deal with a temporary set of circumstances. Surely it is quite wrong to turn temporary measures into permanent measures.

Mr. Gardner: For the purposes of looking at the 1980 legislation, and the order which postpones its repeal, I should like to rely on the unhappy fact that the dispute with the Prison Officers' Association is not yet over. When it is concluded, that may be the wise and prudent moment at which to look again at the legislation. But we are concerned tonight with the present potential for trouble. It is still there. It broke out in 1980 and there is no one in this House—unless he has powers of forecasting which are beyond those held by most people—who can say with the least certainty that there will not be a similar coincidence of circumstances again.
Under section 2 of the Act, a new procedure was introduced to avoid the need for bringing to court every eight days, as the ordinary law rightly demanded, an accused person who had been remanded in custody. I agree


entirely that, when applied in normal circumstances, the powers of section 2 are wholly objectionable, but I think it has now become accepted that the application of section 2—despite all its objectionable features?in an emergency taught us that there was a better way of dealing with remands in custody, and that where there was a continuation of remand in custody it was not always necessary to bring the accused person to court.
For ordinary legislation, which protects the accused person who is in custody and who is remanded in custody, of course his consent is needed to a new procedure of this kind. Of course there must be legal aid, and the person must be represented when he is brought before the court. Nevertheless, when that objectionable procedure was used, I do not recollect or know any evidence to suggest that anyone was injured by it. That gives us hope that, with proper protection—that is, with the consent of the accused—and with the right to legal representation, this new procedure should be adopted as soon as possible. I for one would be happy to hear from my hon. and learned Friend tonight that the Government intend to go ahead with legislation to incorporate this innovation.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall be brief, because the hon. Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) have already expressed my views adequately.
I bitterly oppose the renewal of this legislation. I opposed it when it was introduced. I always felt that section I was the only part that was necessary. Moreover, as someone who has three prisons in his constituency and who has good relations with the prison officers, I felt very strongly that the dispute should have gone to arbitration at the time and that this legislation was never necessary.
Those of us who know something about the prison service know that relations within it have improved remarkably during the past six to nine months. It is a great mistake on the part of the Government to renew the legislation at this time, because it will break the confidence that has been built up over the past few months, in which prison governors and others have played a leading role.
I have been in the House for nearly eight years, and I believe that I was the first hon. Member to have an Adjournment debate on the prison service—certainly the first for a long time. I warned then, as I have warned since, of the breakdown that would occur in prisons if the lot of prison officers was not improved and if we did not do something about the gross overcrowding. I had hoped—there was something in the press on the subject—that the Queen's Speech next week would contain a radical commitment and promise by the Government to introduce legislation on penal reform. Now I wonder whether our hopes will be dashed. I realise that one does not pre-empt what is in the Queen's Speech, but I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will not back down from acting on the recommendations that have come from all quarters to deal with the gross overcrowding of our prisons. However, one has doubts when measures of this nature are introduced.
I am sorry that this legislation is to be renewed again. We are too much in the habit in the House of renewing temporary provisions legislation, and this Act is one that

could easily have been dispatched to the dustbin. If there is a recurrence of the sort of trouble that we had in our prisons a year or so ago, another emergency Bill could be brought in to deal with it immediately, as the hon. Member for Halifax rightly said. For goodness sake, let us have confidence in the prison officers. Let us show them that we mean to resolve the matter now, and that we do not need the sort of legislation that we are being asked to accept tonight.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister came to the House tonight with only one argument for renewing this measure. It was that the prison officers had only suspended their action rather than withdrawn it. If he had wanted to rest his case on that ground—possibly he could—he ought to have given a clear undertaking that as soon as the prison officers ended the action he would seek to repeal this legislation. If he had given such an undertaking clearly and emphatically, I would have been inclined not to vote against the order. I would have pressed him to be told how far the negotiations were proceeding and how soon they would be successful.
However, the Minister was not prepared to give such an undertaking. He seemed to suggest not only that he wanted to keep the measure for the original purpose but that he was envisaging its use for other purposes. That is completely unfair to the House. The Minister is denying the House the proper opportunities to scrutinise this type of legislation. For that reason, we ought to press him very hard to say that he will repeal this legislation as soon as the dispute is settled.
The Minister may say that within the order there is no opportunity to do that. It would be very simple to introduce a measure to repeal the legislation. It may have to be another Bill, but I could almost guarantee that the Minister would have no difficulty in getting it through Parliament, not in a matter of a day but within minutes.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend also agree with several hon. Members who have said that to renew this legislation now will inevitably be seen as a provocative measure on the part of the Government? The only justification that the Government gave on the last occasion was that a dispute was in progress. There is not now a dispute in progress. Therefore, it looks as though the Government are deliberately trying to intimidate the prison officers by renewing the measure.

Mr. Bennett: I take my hon. Friend's point. To renew the measure is not in the best interests of conducting negotiations. I press the Minister to give an undertaking that when there is a settlement he will seek powers to repeal the legislation straight away and that he will not, as he hinted, want to keep it for the rest of the 12 months just in case some other problem arises, which would be grossly unfair to the House.
If the Minister wants to activate the legislation, he ought to give an undertaking that he will not do so as a result of a one-and-a-half-hour debate. If the negotiations go wrong, the Minister has a duty to provide a full debate on why the negotiations have broken down and why it is necessary to bring the legislation back into force. A one-and-a-half-hour debate would be wholly unsatisfactory for that. It would need more like the amount of time that was necessary to pass the legislation originally. 


The point that was made from the Opposition Front Bench was that if it was necessary to have this legislation in the future, we ought to have the process of proper debate and scrutiny in the House and not have such a measure rushed through as a result of a short debate late at night. It seems that it is only as a result of a serious crisis that the House has the right to debate matters and scrutinise legislation.
I come to how the House has been cheated of the opportunity to have a proper debate on all the issues concerned. If the Government had said "We want this legislation for two years, or possibly for longer", we would have gone through the full process of scrutiny, with the opportunity for those outside the House with strong points of view to make them known to Members. All hon. Members involved in this debate, and others, have pointed out that there is much merit in some of the procedures involved, and that if they are properly set up with safeguards, they might go a long way to reducing the prison population. However, as a result of the procedure that the Government have adopted, on every occasion, we have had little opportunity to debate the principles involved. Most of the time has been spent on debating the prison officers' dispute rather than the measures in the legislation.
The Government have a duty to ensure that in the next Session there is an opportunity to debate the possibilities for developing some of these measures, particularly early release and the extension of parole, so that we can have proper legislation on that and do something effective to reduce the prison population.

Mr. John Wheeler: For one straightforward reason, I find no difficulty in supporting my hon. and learned Friend the Minister in his proposal that the Act should continue. That reason is that the dispute within the prison service has not yet been resolved. That is the nub of the problem.
The Prison Officers' Association has yet to determine, with the prison department, decisions on the negotiations that have been going on for some time. Those of us who are familiar with the prison service know that prison officers, who are scattered among over 100 institutions, find difficulty in deciding exactly what they want. In the light of that, the Government have a clear duty to continue with this enactment, at least for the moment. There is a crisis in the prison service. Upwards of 44,000 prisoners are being held in the prisons of England and Wales. It is beyond dispute that any incident that involved the POA in several key prisons could prove extremely serious. In a matter of hours the Government might want to return to the House to activate parts of the Act.
Even if the House were to accept the order, the constituent parts could not be brought into effect without further debate. The safeguards that all hon. Members seek are amply met. I was glad to hear a fellow member of the all-party penal affairs group—the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)—talk about the proposals that he and I, along with others, have debated concerning reform of the prison service, the courts and the criminal justice system. The proposal for a 21-day remand period is wholly sensible, provided that there are ample safeguards.
I understand that the special remand period that the enactment enabled the Government to operate recently

worked extremely well. I know of no complaints. I should be interested to learn from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister whether he has any evidence of complaints from the Home Office, lawyers, banisters or other interested parties. The procedure worked well. I see no reason why we should not continue to support the Government and, thereby, accept the order.
In the coming months, I hope that the House will have an opportunity to look at aspects of the criminal justice system to see what can be done to relieve overcrowding in our prisons and to resolve some of the problems that have existed for many years. The plain truth is that the Government inherited an abominable legacy in the prison system. Tonight we must recognise that legacy. I urge hon. Members to support the order.

Mr. Mayhew: I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). He was right to say that we took on an abominable inheritance. We took on a nil prison-building programme. Between 1918 and 1955 no new prison establishments were built in this country. The greater part of our prison estate was built in Victorian times—[Interruption]—when the political ideas espoused by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) were in their finest flower. It is becoming impossible to use those prisons.
No Government, and certainly no Home Secretary, have done more in recent years to bring home to the public the need to reduce the prison population than the present Government and Home Secretary. Therefore, it is right to approach the difficult issues knowing that the Government took on an abominable inheritance in terms of the prison estate.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister compares the last Labour Government's prison building plans with those of this Government. Has he opened a prison while in office? I did.

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Lady produced it out of a hat, because it takes between 10 and 12 years to bring a prison from start to completion. This Government are committed to a programme of two prison starts a year, beginning this year and stretching for several years ahead.
I am not surprised that the debate ranged wide. It covered the need to reduce the prison population. I make no complaint about that. It is common ground that, with a prison population so far in excess of certified normal accommodation, it is almost impossible for the prison service to do its full job. It is almost impossible for officers to pay attention to the rehabilitative part of their duties as they would like to do. The conditions for both inmates and those whose job it is to serve in the prisons are often abominable. That is part of the background to the issues that we have to decide tonight.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that if the Act were used to reduce the prison population that might be some encouragement. This Government have drawn the attention of the House and the country to the need to reduce the prison population and, within the overriding need to protect the public, to see how prison sentences might be reduced.
The Prison Officers' Association dispute is not resolved. It was widely accepted in the House when the


Act was introduced that the consequences of the dispute necessitated the measures contained in it. The reason was that so great were the difficulties imposed on the criminal justice system by the action that the system was in danger of breaking down.
If that dispute had now been resolved and had been out of the way for some time, we should be in a different position. However, the action has been suspended. It was suspended when we last debated these matters. It had been suspended for about a fortnight when we debated them in February. The situation facing us today is, in essence, no different from the situation confronting us in February when the hon. Member for Halifax said that it was a matter of regret that it was necessary to renew the Act. She did not vote against the renewal of the Act. She said that she thought that it was necessary to renew it.
I say that in essence the situation is no different because the dispute was then suspended, and it remains today only suspended. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who has kindly explained to me that he cannot be here at the moment, and my hon. Friends the Members for Paddington and Grantham (Mr. Hogg) have all made that very point.
It would be irresponsible in the extreme were we in those circumstances to allow the Act that was so widely seen to be necessary to leave the statute book through automatic repeal. What the hon. Member for Halifax and other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches do not seem to have hoisted in is that, by preventing the repeal of the Act, we are not activating any of the powers contained in Part I. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wished to use any of those powers he could not do so simply on his own initiative. He would have to tell the House the circumstances in which he wished the powers to be used. The House would be able to examine the circumstances and to see whether it was proper in those circumstances to give my right hon. Friend those powers, having regard to the history of the Act as a whole.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has pressed me on this. He asked me for an undertaking that if the dispute were resolved I should immediately come to the House and seek the repeal of the Act. I will not give that undertaking because—and I see no justification for being other than entirely frank with the House—as many who have spoken in the debate have said, the prisons have been in a state of critical overcrowding this year. In July the prison population rose to 45,600, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said. That was an all-time record. The figure is a little lower at the moment.
Nobody yet knows what the prison population will be over the next few months. If we were confronted with an explosion to a higher figure than that which I have quoted, and if it became necessary urgently to relieve that pressure, this provision would be available. Whether it would be used, whether the House would consent to its use, is a quite different matter.
I thought that the hon. Member for Stockport, North had a fair point when he said that one and a half hours' debate in those circumstances would be insufficient. Therefore, I believe that it would be proper and highly desirable—of course, I do not control these matters—for a longer period of debate to be provided should the Government seek to implement those powers. The hon.

Lady said that the whole Act was passed in a day and asked why did not we come back with another emergency Bill. If a day's debate were to be granted on an order seeking to implement the powers the same effect would largely result.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister realise that he has just made a very important confession? He said that the powers which were given in the Bill for a specific purpose concerning an industrial dispute may now potentially be used by the Government for a different reason, namely, to relieve the pressure of the prison population. That would be a misuse and an abuse of the powers given under the Act. Of course I want him to take measures to relieve the pressure of the prison population, but that should be done by permanent, considered, well-thought-out, coherent legislation, not by the activation of the powers contained in this Act.

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened with his usual care to what was said. I said that the Act would be available. It is a matter of the construction of the Act. Whether it would be used is one hypothetical question, Whether the House would agree to its being used is another. That is why I do not propose to say to the hon. Member for Stockport, North that it would be withdrawn if the prison dispute were settled straight away.
The key to this issue—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mayhew: No. I have given way quite a lot. I am going to finish what I propose to say.
The key to this issue is whether it would be wise, at a time when the prison officers' dispute is not complete, to repeal the Act which provides for the implementation of powers that Parliament regards as being necessary. That would not be wise for the reasons so adequately and persuasively explained by my hon. Friends.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde asked about section 2.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: I want to say.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".]—My hon. Friend asked about the powers related to the remand of prisoners in section 2. I agree that to remove the right for a prisoner to come before a court without giving him the opportunity to say "I wish to come before the court" when a further remand is sought is unsatisfactory. That is conferred by this Act. The Home Office has exceptionally given guidelines to the courts on how this power should be implemented. No evidence has reached us that anyone's interests have been adversely affected. But earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in answer to a question in the House, said that it was his intention to legislate, that in future the right to legal aid and to representation should exist and that no one should be deprived of the opportunity to come before a court every eight days on further remand unless he consented. In other words, he should be brought to court every eight days unless he consents to the contrary.
I think that meets the difficulties on this issue referred to by the hon. Member for Ormskirk.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mayhew: I have given way a great deal. I shall not give way any more. 


It is essential to remember that if the order is approved—I believe the argument for it has been overwhelmingly made out?no powers in part I of the Act will be able to be implemented. The House will again have to determine whether that is right. In the circumstances, I believe that it is right that repeal of the Act should be postponed. I hope that the House will so decide.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has sat down. I am about to put the Question.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the Minister had given way so that he could answer the questions that were put to him about the progress that has been made to establish a procedure agreement, as recommended by the May committee more than two years ago. Surely the Minister has the time, and wishes to take the opportunity, to answer that fundamental and important point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister kept saying that he was not giving way. I took it that he had finished his speech. Is that so?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 70.

Division No. 316]
 
[11.35 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodhew, Victor


Ancram, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Banks, Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grist, Ian


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Grylls, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hawksley, Warren


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Antony
Lang, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan


Butcher, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Loveridge, John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
LyelI, Nicholas


Churchill, W. S.
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
MacGregor, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Colvin, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Cope, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Cranborne, Viscount
Major, John


Crouch, David
Marlow, Antony


Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mather, Carol


Durant, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Elliott, Sir William
Mayhew, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Mellor, David


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Moate, Roger


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Monro, Sir Hector




NOES


Alton, David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Lamond, James


Beith, A. J.
Litherland, Robert


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Magee, Bryan


Cook, Robin F.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Parry, Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Penhaligon, David


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davidson, Arthur
Prescott, John


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dewar, Donald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dixon, Donald
Sanclelson, Neville


Dobson, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, Jack
Soley, Clive


Dubs, Alfred
Steel, Rt Hon David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Stott, Roger


Eastham, Ken
Strang, Gavin


Evans, John (Newton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Harry
Tilley, John


Foster, Derek
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Welsh, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
White, Frank R.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Haynes, Frank
Winnick, David


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'11)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Home Robertson, John


Homewood, William
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoyle, DouglasMr. George Morton and



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Mr. Allen McKay.

Morgan, Geraint
Squire, Robin


Murphy, Christopher
Stainton, Keith


Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Neubert, Michael
Stokes, John


Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Teblolt, Rt Hon Norman


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Percival, Sir Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wadclington, David


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Royle, Sir Anthony
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton) Speller, Tony


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Sproat, lain
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 (Postponement of Repeal) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1358), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th September, be approved.

National Dock Labour Board

(Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move,
That the draft National Dock Labour Board (Increase of Loans Limit) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
As hon. Members will be aware, severance of registered dock workers takes place normally under the industry's national voluntary severance scheme, which is financed by a payroll levy on employers. Like their predecessors, however, the Government have made loans to the National Dock Labour Board, which administers the industry's severance arrangements, to enable the cost to be spread over a reasonable period.
Changes in cargo handling methods and in the pattern of port traffic in the last decade have contributed to a massive adjustment in the operations of our major ports and their manpower needs. The number of registered dock workers has fallen from 54,000 in 1965 to below 20,000 today, and this reduction has taken place without serious industrial trouble. I doubt whether this could have happened without the national voluntary severance scheme.
In spite of the scheme, however, surplus manpower, both registered and non-registered, has remained a recurrent problem. Changes in methods of cargo handling—in particular, containerisation—have reduced drastically manpower requirements. The year 1981 has proved to be particularly difficult for most United Kingdom ports and the NDLB has therefore had to revise its earlier estimates of the number of severances likely to be needed in the current financial year to some 4,750—an increase of 1,500 on the central estimate that it made in January. The outlook for next year and beyond remains uncertain, but it is reasonable to expect that there will be a need to make further reductions in the labour force.
The Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981 fixed the amount which the NDLB is permitted to borrow at £50 million, but provided for that amount to be increased by order to —90 million. An increase to £90 million is what is sought in the draft order now before the House. Its sole purpose is to enable the Government to help the industry, through the NDLB, to continue to finance the severances needed to bring its labour force more closely into line with its needs.
Hon. Members will want to know why it has proved necessary to come to the House and ask for an increase in the ceiling on borrowing so soon, and perhaps why the 1981 Act did not provide for a larger sum to be borrowed without the need for an order.
Part of the answer lies in the very success of the special scheme to help the ports of London and Liverpool. Government moneys were made available to allow larger severance payments to be made to dockers in London and Liverpool who accepted severance between 1 March and 30 April 1981. Although extra payments of up to £5,500 were funded by grant, however, the basic severance scales of up to ?10,500 were funded through the national voluntary severance scheme in the normal way. The special scheme for London and Liverpool achieved its targets and some 1,900 registered dock workers left the two ports under its terms. Obviously, however, this also meant a very large increase in the number of basic

severance payments under the voluntary scheme, increasing the deficit on the scheme by some £18 million to £30 million.
In addition, at the time of the passage of the Act it was not clear that an increase in the scales throughout the country would soon be thought necessary, but hon. Members will know that the National Association of Port Employers has now introduced a special scheme which offers on a national basis payments up to maximum of £16,000 under the NVSS to dock workers applying for severance between 1 September and 31 October.
The employers have estimated that they need if possible to achieve 2,750 severances under the special scheme, mainly in ports other than London and Liverpool. Meeting the cost of severances of this order is likely to push up the NVSS deficit by a further £35 million to £65 million. A third of this extra £35 million will be the result of the increase in the scales. The other two-thirds would have occurred if there had been an increase in the number of severances to the figures thought desirable under the old scales.
Clearly, loans of this size cannot be made without a substantial burden being placed on the industry. Interest has to be paid and arrangements have to be made for repayment. This inevitably means an increase in levies, and the employers have agreed to increase the national levy on 1 January next year by 2 per cent. , bringing it to 7½ per cent. of payroll. This is in addition to local severance levies which currently range from 0.5 per cent. to 4 per cent. Unwelcome as this must be to port employers, one must remember that in 1965 they made the decision to stay out of the statutory redundancy payments scheme and make their own arrangements, and this is a consequence of those arrangements. But the Government will continue to do what they can to help and to this end have agreed to extend the repayment period for current loans from five to 10 years.
The whole purpose of the current severance programme in the industry is to achieve a more efficient ports industry. There is no doubt that to achieve that greater efficiency changes in working practices are needed. Indeed, if the Government are expected to provide financial help, they are entitled to expect such changes in return. I was therefore pleased to learn some weeks ago that substantial changes in manning and other practices had been agreed between the management of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the trade unions. Only through agreements of this kind can we hope to maintain a viable ports industry.
I ask the House to approve the draft order.

Mr. Harold Walker: I shall try to earn the gratitude and appreciation of the House by not detaining hon. Members for too long. However, it is less than a year ago—3 November 1980—that we discussed a similar order to raise the borrowing powers of the National Dock Labour Board from £10 million to the then maximum permitted figure under the 1976 Act of £30 million. Within months, that £30 million which the then Minister described as a "prudent figure", was raised on a side-wind through the provisions of the Ports (Financial Assistance) Act to £50 million.
Tonight, just a few months on, we are asked to approve the rather impressive sum of £90 million. We have no intention of challenging the order. We entirely understand


and accept the reasons that make it necessary. However, the order illustrates the Government's lack of judgment and foresight. It shows their sheer inability to get even the shortest of short-term forecasts anywhere near a target, even for situations as predictable as this.
As recently as March£my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will remember it well, as he was very much involved£in introducing the enabling legislation the Secretary of State for Transport said that the Secretary of State for Employment
does not envisage that the higher figure will be needed in the foreseeable future,"—?[Official Report, 25 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 994.]

However, today, only a few months later, the threefold increase in the sum described as "prudent" only a year ago is upon us. It has risen from ?10 million to £90 million in less than 12 months. Apparently, the foreseeable future for the Government does not go much beyond six months.
I cannot help recalling that even the modest sum—as it seems now—of £10 million provided in the 1976 Act was furiously attacked and denounced by Conservative Members. What they said then is well illustrated by quoting the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, (Mr. Ridley), who is now a Minister. I was a Minister at the time and was present when he stated:
I ask the Government to justify the £10 million, let alone the £30 million … I propose that the power to go to £30 million be deleted from the Bill, because I cannot conceive of circumstances in which £30 million would be needed, or would be right or proper.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G,9 March 1976; c. 307.]
He went on to propose that the sum be reduced to ?2 million.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Hear, hear.

Mr. Walker: I hear hon. Members on the Tory Benches below the Gangway saying "Hear, hear". It appears that they share that outdated view, so they still misunderstand the situation facing dock workers.
The hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury went into the Lobby in support of his proposition. The Tory Party, whether in office or opposition, gets its sums wrong again and again. Can the Minister assure us that the Government have it right this time?
As I said, I do not wish to detain the House and nor do I wish to incite opposition to the order. However, can the Minister say a little more about present manpower levels compared with recent levels? Can he give a forecast of future employment in the ports industry? I understand that the present register for scheme ports stands at about 20,000, which appears to be about 3,500 or 4,000 down on about a year ago. At what number does the Minister expect the level to bottom out? 

I do not ask for precise figures, as they may not be obtainable, but to what extent is the decline in the labour force in scheme ports due to a fall off in dock work generally and to what extent to work going from scheme ports to non-scheme ports or inland groupage depots and so on? Considering our experience since 1976—indeed, since 1969—it is important to assess the problems that the Government will face in demands for financial support, particularly for the unfortunate men who are to lose their employment.
I assume that the financial requirement is based on an arithmetical assessment. We hope that the decline in manpower will reach a plateau. How long will it be before the plateau is reached? What rate of take-up of severance is expected? Does the Minister expect the entire borrowing ceiling proposed in the order to be taken up?
Will the Minister also say something about the long- overdue implementation of the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, which requires the Secretary of State to introduce a new dock work scheme? A mandatory obligation is placed on the Secretary of State, though it is qualified by words such as "as soon as may be". However, from 1976 to 1981 is stretching what was meant by those words more than a little.
May I finally echo some remarks that I made on a similar order last year? The House and people outside should be aware of some facts when Parliament is asked to vote large sums to the ports industry. I was glad that the Minister reminded us that dock workers are excluded from the statutory redundancy payments scheme. They will not get the amounts provided by the voluntary severance scheme in addition, or as an alternative, to the sums that might have been provided by the statutory scheme. They are not entitled to those sums. It would be inappropriate for me to go into the reasons for that, but it is a factor that we need to bear in mind.
For most, not all, dock workers, severance from dock work means severance from employment permanently. It is inevitable that men who are contemplating the prospect of joining the 3 million on the dole queue should put a high price on their jobs.
It would be helpful if the Minister had said something about the employment prospects of redundant dock workers and what steps the Government are taking to help them with retraining for other employment. But perhaps the Secretary of State wants them to join his cycling club.
I hope that the Minister will consider the questions that I have put and will respond positively. We support the order and we will not divide the House against it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft National Dock Labour Board (Increase of Loans Limit) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.

Unemployment (Kilmarnock)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Budgen.]

Mr. William McKelvey: I welcome the opportunity to draw attention to the growing unemployment problem in Kilmarnock. Just over a decade ago, Kilmarnock was considered a boom town and industry was diverse. We had heavy and light engineering, carpet weaving, lace making, spinning, knitwear production, pottery and whisky blending; and the shoe trade was prosperous.

Those industries carried names that were known the world over—Saxone, Glenfield and Kennedy, Massey Ferguson, Armitage Shanks and, of course, John Walker, the whisky company. Jobs were plentiful and a loss of production in one or two industries was usually more than compensated for by increases in others. Individuals who found themselves temporarily out of work were able simply to cross the road and to seek work in another industry.
However, in the past few years those giants of Scottish industry have been struggling against the effects of a Western economic slump which has been aided, abetted and accelerated by the Government's slavish addiction to monetarism. Since the Government came to office I have witnessed the loss of more than 4,000 jobs in my constituency and the disappearance of a whole industrial base.
Let me give an account of the decline so that hon. Members may be aware of it. Massey Ferguson, for instance, was perhaps the beginning of the big slide. This was a multinational company that produced combine harvesters—the only company in the United Kingdom that produced them in any quantity. The Government stood by and allowed that company to be uprooted, and the production line was transported to Marquette in France. The matter was raised in the House by my predecessor, and I also raised it, with the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). In Kilmarnock 1,800 jobs were lost and the cost in misery and humiliation is incalculable. At Saxone, the shoe manufacturer, another famous name ruined by years of Italian imports, the cost in jobs to date is about 600 and the cost in terms of human misery again cannot be calculated.
The catalogue goes on. At Armitage Shanks, 100 years of pottery making in Kilmarnock was virtually wiped out when Blue Circle Cement took over the company. The bid was the subject of a Monopolies Commission inquiry, which concluded that it was in the public interest for Blue Circle to take over Armitage Shanks. The management told the workers that they should seize the opportunity because production would continue for some time and their jobs would be secure for years to come. Within six months of Blue Circle taking it over the firm closed and put on to the dole queue 600 men and women, some with 45 year's service, who had spent their working lives in the pottery industry. They were cast on to the dole queue by Blue Circle Cement, and now, as there is no chance of a pottery starting in Kilmarnock in the near future and as that is the only trade these people, most of whom are over 45

years of age, know, they will probably never work again. If one asks them about the ugly face of capitalism, they will be able to say how it has affected them directly.
Spinning and knitwear industries have been virtually forced out of existence by the never-ending flow of cheap imports. The Government are aware of the position, they have been told many times, but we still get the standard stock reply from the Minister that it is being noted and monitored. In the town of Stewarton there were once 40 small knitwear factories, but now there are fewer than 12. Hundreds of jobs have disappeared in the last two years, never to be replaced.
Now we have to add another name to this catalogue of disasters—the famous name of BMK. Two weeks ago it was taken over by the receiver because it was incurring large losses. That firm started in Kilmarnock. It was called Blackwood and Morton of Kilmarnock and became known as BMK—a name synonymous with high quality carpets the world over. It started in 1908 and prospered and grew to be worth millions of pounds in 1974. At that time it employed a maximum of 3,500 people.
In recent years the carpet industry has been in decline, mainly because of the massive influx of imports from North America and from the Continent. The North American carpets are most certainly subsidised and are being brought into this country and sold at a rate cheaper than that at which carpets can be manufactured here. They are being sold to the detriment of our carpet industry. Thousands of jobs have been lost.
I have written to the Minister on several occasions pointing out the difficulties of the carpet industry because of the influx of imports, but I have always had the same standard, stock reply: "We are aware of the points you make. The British Carpet Manufacturers Association has made these points on many occasions, and we are monitoring the situation".
In January and February this year, the figures showed an increase in imports of American carpets of 40 per cent. and an incredible jump in Belgian imports of 96 per cent. The cost, of course, has been borne by our industries here, and in particular BMK in Kilmarnock, which is now in the hands of the receiver, who is desperately trying to find a buyer for a firm which had shown a loss in the previous six months of over£1.3 million.
I have already been to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to plead the case for BMK. I have to register some disappointment with the replies, because the industry needs help now and simply cannot wait. If we wait and yet another famous name, BMK, disappears from Kilmarnock and the Ayrshire scene, we shall have a leap in unemployment from the present wholly unacceptable figure of 18 per cent. to about 22 per cent. That will mean about 28 per cent. in male unemployment.
We are inclined to bandy unemployment figures about the House without ever really considering what they mean in terms of human misery and degradation. We have to consider what would happen to a family unit employed in BMK—perhaps the husband and the wife and in some cases also a son or a daughter. There is a possibility of their being thrown on to the dole queue, because 147 people were paid off last week. The receiver has intimated to the work force that the position will be monitored on a week-by-week basis in order to trim the work force. The 147 have been added to the growing dole queues in Kilmarnock, and among them there are family units. One


can imagine the domestic pressures, with the awful feeling that the breadwinner may be facing a life on the dole for many years to come.
If there is any upturn in the economy, it is certainly not happening in Scotland, and it is most certainly not happening in Kilmarnock and in Ayrshire. It is right, therefore, that the Minister should be questioned publicly and given the opportunity publicly to reply to some of the questions that I want to ask him.
The receiver would welcome and could certainly use £1 million of cash, to be injected into BMK right now. If he had that £1 million underpinning the present losses, he would have the confidence to go forward and to look for new orders. He was prepared only last week to accept two new orders, although he confessed to me that in the future he might not have that confidence. If he does not find a buyer by the middle of November, he fears that the operation of the factory as a viable unit might end some time in March. He would not then be in a position to offer potential buyers the goodwill that BMK has enjoyed for the last 70 years. But if the receiver had that £1 million he would be able to underpin the loss and have the confidence to go for orders and could keep BMK as a viable unit, with the chance of attracting a buyer from somewhere in the world.
Secondly, a task force needs to be installed now in BMK, through an office in Kilmarnock, to look after the interests of BMK and to try to assist the receiver to make the firm viable and thus attract a new buyer. That agency should be manned by the Scottish economic planning department or by the Scottish Development Agency and be on site to deal not only with the problems of BMK but to set the ground rules for bringing in a brand new industry. That is what Kilmarnock needs, because all the traditional industries are dying. The Government could invest money in a brand new expanding industry and direct a new employer into the area to provide thousands of new jobs quickly.
However, there was a ray of sunshine in this sad tale. It was contained in the Kilmarnock Standard and it relates to the Minister's visit last week to the Kilmarnock area to open an extension of Smith Brothers (Kilmarnock) Ltd., which is a printing firm. We welcomed the Minister's presence in Kilmarnock to open a factory. Indeed, the Minister would be welcome every week if he could produce an extension of any factory or enterprise, irrespective of the size. I shall quote the Minister's words, as reported by the Kilmarnock Standard:
We're all terribly concerned with unemployment, but there is no good 'greetin' about it; we've got to do something about it.
I am giving the Minister the opportunity to do something positive and say, "We are ready. If BMK comes up with a viability proposal, the coffers of the Treasury will be opened and there is an unlimited supply of cash to assist the new buyer in making a viable industry even more viable."
The awful truth is that Kilmarnock has 18 per cent. unemployment now, without taking BMK into account. What does that mean in human terms? It means 4,600 men, 1,763 women and?perhaps the saddest and most tragic of all—1,400 youngsters between the ages of 16 and 19, with little or no hope for the future. The people of Kilmarnock, who are a hard-working and thriving industrial community, are not prepared to stand by and be reduced to some kind of depressed, broken and

undignified flotsam on the industrial scene. They deserve a brighter future for themselves and for the future generations, their children and their grandchildren.
I have pledged to fight for their rights, and I shall continue to do so in any fashion and down any avenue that I think will assist them in their struggle to achieve a just solution for Kilmarnock and for the whole of Scotland, and in particular Ayrshire. I hope that the Minister has taken some cognisance of what I have said. He knows my opinion, because we have gone over the ground, particularly at our last few meetings, at some length.
If what I have said tonight falls upon deaf ears, I intend to go further. I have written to the Prime Minister, and she has agreed to meet me on Wednesday. I shall press her for the kind of changes that I hope that the Minister will agree to tonight.

(Mr. Alexander Fletcher):: I am sure that all who hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) on this subject—I realise that not many hon. Members are present?agree that he has a deep concern for the problems of his constituency. I accept entirely his determination to fight for Kilmarnock and employment there. Although at times he may find this difficult to believe, I can assure him that my right hon. Friend and I are equally determined to fight to improve employment prospects in Kilmarnock and elsewhere in Scotland. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has given the House tonight to consider employment in the Kilmarnock area. The area has had more than its share of closures and redundancies in recent years. Some were listed by the hon. Gentleman—Glenfield and Kennedy, Massey Ferguson and Monsanto. As he said, unemployment is currently running at just under 18 per cent. Understandably, therefore, there is grave apprehension about the future.
The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to BMK, which is now in receivership. Only this morning I met the hon. Gentleman and shop stewards from the company, and the provost and chief executive from the district, to discuss the problem. We had quite a helpful discussion.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Massey Ferguson company. He said that the Government had stood back and done nothing to try to help. He would want to be reminded that far from that being so, I went to Toronto to see the president of the company because we were dissatisfied with some of the explanations that were coming forward regarding the Kilmarnock closure. We had many meetings with the company in Scotland and in London. The hard truth of the matter as far as Massey Ferguson is concerned is simply that no amount of Government assistance would have persuaded the company to stay in Kilmarnock, for the very simple reason that it was closing factories all over the world, in North America and South America and in Canada, the headquarters.

Mr. David Lambie: And opening one in France.

Mr. Fletcher: It did not open a factory in France. It transferred some production to that factory from Kilmarnock. It was doing the same in North and South America. It was closing factories there as well.
The particular matter of concern tonight is the carpet industry. In Scotland and elsewhere in the United



Kingdom it has suffered severely from the effects of the recession. Companies have undertaken substantial rationalisation in order to remain competitive in a very challenging market. We have seen a particular threat from cheap imports from the United States, but the recent movement in sterling in relation to the dollar, bringing the pound to what we consider is a more realistic level, has helped to remove at least part of that threat. But the industry is still experiencing very difficult conditions, and BMK in Kilmarnock is no exception.
On the question of imports, however, the figures that I have reveal that in 1980 22 per cent. of United Kingdom consumption was imported and of that figure just over 5½ per cent. was imported from Belgium. These are significant figures but, nevertheless, they must be seen in perspective with the total United Kingdom market and the amount that was imported as distinct from the amount that was supplied from British manufacturers.

Mr. McKelvey: It is a shrinking market.

Mr. Fletcher: I take that point.
I want to deal in particular with BMK and with the charge which the hon. Gentleman repeated tonight?that the Government are standing back and have taken no action nor got themselves involved in trying to help the company to try to resolve the threat of closure which hangs over the company and the thousand or so jobs in Kilmarnock alone.
That is not the case, as I shall illustrate. In June 1981 the company discussed its trading position with the Scottish Development Agency. As a consequence, BMK asked the agency to engage in a study. It employed the agency in a consultative capacity to look at its trading problems and to see what steps might be taken to get the company out of its difficulties. My officials in the Scottish economic planning department became involved with the company last month when the SDA reported the extent of the expected losses and recommended the closure of less profitable areas of the company's activities. This action?which was recommended by the SDA—coupled with other economies, including, I am afraid, a substantial number of redundancies, could conceivably have improved the position, but it depended on the company obtaining new borrowing facilities at a time when it was already heavily in debt to the bank. The company's bankers were not satisfied that the proposals made by the company would succeed. Therefore, the management tried to find alternative sources of funding to restructure the company and to resolve the problem. However, they were not forthcoming and, as a result—as the hon. Gentleman knows?BMK asked the bank to appoint a receiver.
The hon. Gentleman expressed a wish that the company had had £1 million. I do not doubt his sincerity. However, in recent years BMK has received a substantial amount of financial support from Government funds both to facilitate investment and to avert redundancies. As it happens, the most significant amount was made available to the company during the two years ending July 1981. The Government made a sum in excess of £1 million available to the company. It was not a loan but a grant to help to avert redundancies at Kilmarnock and at the Hillington factory. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that involved short-time working compensation. 

That underlines the fact that the Government have made substantial amounts of taxpayers' money available to the company, but that has not helped. In the year to 30 June 1980, the company incurred a loss of £479,000. In the six months to 31 December 1980 the company made a further loss of £1.3 million. Therefore, the loss for the full year to June 1981 will obviously be substantial, given the £1.3 million loss in six months and the company's inability to find fresh funding to enable it to restructure and to find a new line of attack on its problems.
The current position is that on 15 October Deloitte, Haskin and Sells, chartered accountants, were appointed receivers to the company. They decided to continue trading while negotiations took place with potential buyers for all or part of the company's operations. No deadline has been set and no decisions have been taken on closure. These matters remain open while?as I have often told the hon. Gentleman?the receivers carry out their task not only of managing the company in the interim period, but of endeavouring to find a buyer for all or part of the business.
The Scottish economic planning department is in close touch with the receivers and stands ready to consider urgently the availability of selective financial assistance under the Industry Act 1972 for any viable investment proposal that may arise to safeguard employment in the company, particularly in Kilmarnock.
That is the extent of the assistance that has been made available to the company. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is substantial. That is the action that has been taken since the company?during the summer?asked the Government and the Government's agency, the SDA, to assist in trying to find a plan to get it out of its difficulties. The receiver is busily trying to see what can be done to save the business, or part of it.
This morning the hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked me to arrange a meeting with the receiver because he thought there might be a misunderstanding in the meetings taking place between him and the receiver and between my officials and the receiver. I undertook to see the receiver as soon as possible. I have made an appointment to see him on Friday morning. I shall take the opportunity next week to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date with that meeting and whatever arises from it. He will then be in full possession of the facts.
There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about BMK and unemployment in Kilmarnock. I say without hesitation that the Government are equally concerned.

Mr. Lambie: What are they doing about it?

Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. An appeal has been made to give the company £1 million. I have said that in the period ending July this year the Government made taxpayers' money in excess of £1 million available to the company. After that money ran out the company found that its trading position had worsened. Whether the money is found for short-time working compensation or anything else, it is still cash that assists the company's liquidity. The company also received a number of offers from the Scottish Office of funds to facilitate investment. It took up some of them in the last few years. It is for the company to decide whether to take up offers of selective financial assistance for investment. 


When all these matters are taken into account we can say that we are not making polite noises about the Government's action and concern. We are deeply involved and committed. We shall continue to do everything that we can to help any viable proposition from the company and to assist the area to find new jobs and new industries,

so that, when the upturn in the economy comes to Scotland, the area will be as ready as possible to take advantage of it.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.